cases about Redundancy.docx

7/21/2019 cases about Redundancy.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cases-about-redundancydocx 1/34

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

CALT! "PHILS#$% INC# "no&

CHVRON PHILIPPINS% INC#$%∗ '#R# No# ()*+,(

Petitioner, Present:

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J .,

Chairperson, - versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,

CHICO-NAZARIO,

NACHURA, an

REYES, JJ . NATIONAL LA-OR RLATIONS

COMMISSION AND

ROMO T# STO# TOMAS%

Res!onents.∗∗ Pro"u#$ate:

O%to&er '(, )**+

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D C I S I O N

A.STRIA/MARTIN0% J #1

eore us is a Petition or Revie/ on Certiorari uner Ru#e 0( i#e &1 Ca#te 2P3i#i!!ines4 In%., no/C3evron P3i#i!!ines, In%. 2!etitioner4 see5in$ to annu# an set asie t3e 6e%ision7'8 ate Ma1 '(, )**9, an t3e

Reso#ution7)8 ate Au$ust )', )**9 o t3e Court o A!!ea#s 2CA4 in CA-G.R. SP No. (0*(.

Ro"eo T. Sto To"as 2!rivate res!onent4 /as a re$u#ar e"!#o1ee o !etitioner sin%e ;e&ruar1 ), '<=0. He

/as a Senior A%%ountin$ Ana#1st re%eivin$ a "ont3#1 sa#ar1 o P)<,=*.** at t3e ti"e o 3is ter"ination on >u#1 9','<<+.

In a #etter 798 ate O%to&er )', '<<, !etitioner inor"e t3e 6e!art"ent o ?a&or an E"!#o1"ent 26O?E4 o

its !#an to i"!#e"ent a reunan%1 !ro$ra" in its Mar5etin$ 6ivision an so"e e!art"ents inits atan$as Reiner1 or t3e !erio startin$ O%to&er '<< to 6e%e"&er '<<=. T3e #etter a##e$e t3at t3e reunan%1

!ro$ra" is a res!onse to t3e "ar5et situation /3i%3 %onstraine !etitioner to rationa#i@e an si"!#i1 its &usiness

!ro%esses t3at !etitioner unertoo5 a revie/, restru%turin$ an strea"#inin$ o its or$ani@ation /3i%3 resu#te in

%onso#iation, a&o#ition an outsour%in$ o %ertain un%tions an in t3e ientii%ation o %ertain reunant !ositions. T3e #etter a#so states t3at !etitioner /i## !rovie t3e 6O?E a #ist o ae%te e"!#o1ees as it i"!#e"ents

ea%3 !3ase o t3e reunan%1 !ro$ra".

Petitioner, t3rou$3 a #etter 708 ate >une 9*, '<<+, notiie !rivate res!onent o 3is ter"ination ee%tive >u#19', '<<+ ue to t3e reunan%1 o 3is !osition an a/are 3i" a se!aration !a%5a$e in t3e a"ount

o P((<,0(=.<* %onsistin$ o t3e o##o/in$:

Re$u#ar se!arationBretire"ent &eneits P9(),+)'.)(uner t3e Ne/ Retire"ent P#an an

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/159641.htm#_ftn1

















E-$ratia !a1"ent %o"!ute at "ont3Ds

&asi% !a1 or ever1 1ear o servi%e )*,+9+.(

TOTA? P((<,0(=.<*7(8

On >une =, '<<=, res!onent i#e /it3 t3e ?a&or Ar&iter a %o"!#aint 78 or i##e$a# is"issa# a$ainst !etitioner

an its Presient an C3ie Ee%utive Oi%er, Mr. C#iton Hon. Private res!onent a##e$e t3at: &ein$ !etitionerDsre$u#ar e"!#o1ee, 3e is entit#e to se%urit1 o tenure 3e i not %o""it an1 serious "is%onu%t, /i##u#

iso&eien%e, $ross an 3a&itua# ne$#e%t o ut1 or rau an /i##u# &rea%3 o trust to /arrant t3e !ena#t1 o

is"issa# ro" e"!#o1"ent t3ere /as no ine!enent !roo or evien%e !resente &1 !etitioner to su&stantiate its

%#ai" o reunan%1 nor /as 3e aore ue !ro%ess as 3e /as not $iven an1 o!!ortunit1 to !resent 3is sie 3e/as is"isse ue to 3is a%tive !arti%i!ation in union a%tivities !etitioner o!ene !ositions or 3irin$ so"e o /3i%3

oere o&s t3at are t3e sa"e as /3at !rivate res!onent /as !eror"in$ !etitioner ai#e to $ive /ritten noti%e to

3i" an 6O?E at #east one "ont3 &eore t3e intene ate o ter"ination as reFuire &1 t3e ?a&or Coe.

In its !osition !a!er, !etitioner an Mr. Hon averre t3at !rivate res!onentDs is"issa# ro" t3e servi%e /as

ue to reunan%1 o 3is !osition /3i%3 /as eter"ine ater !etitionerDs &usiness !ro%ess re-en$ineerin$ stu1 an

or$ani@ation revie/, %onu%te /it3 !rivate res!onentDs 5no/#e$e t3at reunan%1 is an aut3ori@e %ause to

ter"inate an e"!#o1ee /3i%3 is a "ana$e"ent !rero$ative an %annot &e interere /it3 a&sent an1 a&use o

is%retion an t3at t3ere is not3in$ in t3e #a/ t3at reFuires !etitioner to %onu%t i"!artia# investi$ation or 3earin$ toter"inate an e"!#o1ee ue to reunan%1.

On Mar%3 9', '<<<, t3e ?a&or Ar&iter 2?A4 renere a e%ision7+8 is"issin$ t3e %o"!#aint /it3out !reui%eto t3e !a1"ent o !rivate res!onentDs se!aration !a1 as reFuire &1 #a/ or as $rante &1 !etitioner !ursuant to

%o"!an1 !ra%ti%e /3i%3ever is 3i$3er.

T3e ?A oun t3at !rivate res!onents is"issa# ro" t3e servi%e on t3e $roun o reunan%1 /as one in$oo ait3 an a va#i eer%ise o "ana$e"ent !rero$ative t3at reunan%1 i not eter t3e e"!#o1er to 3ire

aitiona# /or5ers /3en it is ee"e &est or !ro!er "ana$e"ent an t3at t3ere is no nee or !etitioner to %onu%t

an i"!artia# investi$ation or 3earin$ sin%e !rivate res!onentDs is"issa# /as not re#ate to 3is &#a"e/ort31 a%t or

o"ission. 3i#e t3e ?A oun t3at !etitioner ai#e to $ive noti%e to 6O?E one "ont3 &eore t3e intene ate o !rivate res!onentDs ter"ination, t3e ?A ru#e t3at non-%o"!#ian%e /it3 t3e !ro%eura# reFuire"ent /i## not !er se

"a5e t3e ter"ination i##e$a# an 3e# t3at reFuire"ent o !ro%eura# !ro%ess /as not tota##1 isre$are.

Res!onent i#e 3is a!!ea# /it3 t3e Nationa# ?a&or Re#ations Co""ission 2N?RC4 /3i%3 in a6e%ision7=8 ate >anuar1 9*, )**', reverse t3e e%ision o t3e ?A, t3e is!ositive !ortion o /3i%3 reas:

HERE;ORE, t3e e%ision o t3e ?a&or Ar&iter is 3ere&1 ACATE6 an SET ASI6E

an u$"ent is 3ere&1 renere:

'. 6e%#arin$ t3e is"issa# o %o"!#ainant to &e /it3out a ust or aut3ori@e %ause an, t3ereore,

i##e$a#.

). Orerin$ res!onent Ca#te 2P3i#s.4 In%. to reinstate t3e %o"!#ainant to 3is or"er or su&stantia##1

eFuiva#ent !osition, /it3out #oss o seniorit1 ri$3ts an ot3er !rivi#e$es an to !a1 %o"!#ainant 3is

u## &a%5/a$es in%#usive o a##o/an%e an ot3er &eneits %o"!ute ro" Au$ust ', '<<+ u! to 3isa%tua# reinstate"ent. Ho/ever, s3ou# %o"!#ainantDs reinstate"ent &e no #on$er easi&#e ue toso"e va#i reasons, res!onent Ca#te 2P3i#s.4 In%., is 3ere&1 orere to !a1 %o"!#ainant 3is

se!aration !a1 %o"!ute at one 2'4 "ont3 !a1 or ever1 1ear o servi%e, a ra%tion o at #east si

24 "ont3s to &e %onsiere as one 2'4 /3o#e 1ear. T3e se!aration !a1 s3a## &e in aition to

%o"!#ainantDs u## &a%5/a$es.

A## ot3er %#ai"s o %o"!#ainant are 3ere&1 6ISMISSE6 or #a%5 o "erit.7<8

















In so ru#in$, t3e N?RC e!oune t3at a#t3ou$3 Arti%#e )=9 o t3e ?a&or Coe aut3ori@es ter"ination ue to

reunan%1, t3ere "ust &e a%tua# &asis t3at t3e re%ors i not is%#ose an1 evien%e to s3o/ &asis

or res!onentDs ter"ination t3at neit3er i !etitioner sen noti%e to 6O?E one "ont3 !rior to res!onentDs

is"issa#.

PetitionerDs Motion or Re%onsieration /as enie in a Reso#ution7'*8 ate Mar%3 )+, )**'.

Petitioner i#e /it3 t3e CA a Petition or Certiorari a##e$in$ $rave a&use o is%retion %o""itte &1 t3e N?RC in inin$ res!onentDs ter"ination i##e$a#.

In a 6e%ision ate Ma1 '(, )**9, t3e CA enie t3e !etition. T3e CA ru#e t3at t3ere /as no reason to

eviate ro" t3e inin$s o t3e N?RC sin%e t3e !ie%es o evien%e !resente &1 !etitioner are not on#1 insui%ient &ut a#so &ase#ess an se#-servin$ t3at !etitionerDs "ain ar$u"ent t3at !rivate res!onentDs is"issa# on t3e $roun

o reunan%1 /as on#1 resorte to ater a %onu%t o t3orou$3 &usiness !ro%ess reen$ineerin$ stu1 an resear%3 is

not3in$ &ut a &are assertion t3at no/3ere in t3e re%ors %an it &e oun t3at t3ere /as inee a stu1 %onu%te &1

!etitioner /3i%3 %u#"inate in t3e a&o#ition an %onso#iation o %ertain !ositions in t3e oi%e t3at neit3er /ast3ere an1 !roo t3at !etitioner tru#1 3a a %on%rete reunan%1 !ro$ra" t3at is re#e%tive o an1 inan%ia# #oss or

!ossi&#e an o&taina&#e su&stantia# !roits in %ase t3e !ro$ra" is i"!#e"ente nor /ere t3ere an1 na"e a%tors

%onsiere &1 t3e !etitioner in unerta5in$ t3e reu%tion !ro$ra" t3at /3at !etitioner !resente /as "ere#1 a %o!1

o its #etter to t3e 6O?E inor"in$ t3e #atter o its intention to i"!#e"ent a reunan%1 !ro$ra" an not3in$ "ore

an t3at !etitioner ai#e to a!!#1 t3e %riteria in ee%tin$ !rivate res!onentDs is"issa# ue to reunan%1 as t3ere/as no s3o/in$ t3at it uner/ent !ainsta5in$ se#e%tion ro" a"on$ its e"!#o1ees to &e is"isse.

T3e CA urt3er oun t3at !etitioner ai#e to sen 6O?E a /ritten noti%e o its i"!#e"entation o t3ereunan%1 !ro$ra" one "ont3 !rior to t3e intene ate t3ereo sin%e !etitioner 3a a"itte su%3 ai#ure in its

Ans/er to res!onentDs a!!ea# to t3e N?RC.

T3e CA #i5e/ise oun t3at !etitionerDs &e#ate su&"ission to t3e CA o t3e #etter ate >une 9*, '<<+ !ur!orte#1 noti1in$ 6O?E o t3e !#an to i"!#e"ent a reunan%1 !ro$ra" is u&ious &e%ause o !etitionerDs

ear#ier a"ission t3at it i not sen 6O?E a /ritten noti%e o ter"ination t3at !etitioner s3ou# 3ave su&"itte t3e

evien%e at t3e ear#iest o!!ortunit1 an t3at t3e #etter /as se#-servin$ sin%e it i not &ear an1 !roo o re%ei!t &1

t3e 6O?E.

T3e CA enie !etitionerDs Motion or Re%onsieration in a Reso#ution ate Au$ust )', )**9.

Hen%e, 3erein !etition i#e &1 !etitioner on t3e o##o/in$ $rouns:

THE PU?IC RESPON6ENT COURT O; APPEA?S COMMITTE6 GRAE AUSE O;

6ISCRETION AMOUNTING TO ?ACJ O; OR IN EKCESS O; ITS >URIS6ICTION HEN

IT ISSUE6 THE 6ECISION 6ATE6 MAY '(, )**9 AN6 THE RESO?UTION 6ATE6AUGUST )', )**9 A;;IRMING THE OR6ERS 6ATE6 >ANUARY 9*, )**' AN6 MARCH

)+, )**' O; THE RESPON6ENT N?RC CONSI6ERING THAT THEY ARE NOT

SUPPORTE6 Y SUSTANTIA? EI6ENCE.

THE PU?IC RESPON6ENT COURT O; APPEA?S COMMITTE6 GRAE AUSE

O; 6ISCRETION AMOUNTING TO ?ACJ OR IN EKCESS O; >URIS6ICTION HEN IT

A;;IRME6 THE ;IN6ING O; THE RESPON6ENT N?RC THAT THE 6ISMISSA? O; THEPRIATE RESPON6ENT AS ITHOUT >UST AN6 AUTHORIZE6 CAUSE.

THE PU?IC RESPON6ENT COURT O; APPEA?S COMMITTE6 GRAE AUSE

O; 6ISCRETION AMOUNTING TO ?ACJ OR IN EKCESS O; ITS >URIS6ICTION HEN

IT A;;IRME6 THE ;IN6ING O; THE RESPON6ENT N?RC 6IRECTING THEREINSTATEMENT O; THE PRIATE RESPON6ENT AN6 THE PAYMENT O; HIS

ACJAGES COMPUTE6 ;ROM AUGUST ', '<<+.7''8

Petitioner insists t3at it 3a a#rea1 inor"e t3e 6O?E Se%retar1 t3rou$3 a #etter-noti%e ate O%to&er )','<< o its !#an to i"!#e"ent a reunan%1 !ro$ra" /3i%3 /as re%eive on O%to&er )0, '<< t3at t3e CA i$nore








su%3 ear#ier noti%e an %on%entrate on its a##e$e ai#ure to sen noti%e one "ont3 !rior to !rivate res!onentDs

ter"ination t3at t3e >une 9*, '<<+ noti%e to 6O?E /as &e#ate#1 su&"itte sin%e it /as not easi#1 #o%ate t3at t3e

&e#ate su&"ission s3ou# not &e ta5en a$ainst !etitioner t3at t3e su&seFuent noti%e to t3e 6O?E /as on#1 a o##o/

u! to t3e ear#ier noti%e ate O%to&er )', '<< an t3at t3ere /as su&stantia# %o"!#ian%e /it3 t3e noti%ereFuire"ent o t3e ?a&or Coe or a va#i reunan%1 !ro$ra".

Petitioner urt3er ar$ues t3at !rivate res!onentDs ter"ination ue to reunan%1 is va#i %onsierin$ t3at 3e

%onsente to 3is ter"ination &1 a%%e!tin$ an &eneitin$ ro" t3e !a%5a$e $iven &1 !etitioner in t3e tota# a"ounto P((<,0(=.<* t3at 3is se!aration !a%5a$e is eFuiva#ent to '.9< "ont3Ds &asi% !a1 or ever1 1ear o servi%e, /a1

a&ove t3e "ini"u" se!aration !a1 reFuire &1 #a/ t3at i !rivate res!onentDs ter"ination is inee i##e$a# an t3at

3e s3ou# &e reinstate /it3 u## &a%5/a$es, 3e s3ou# &e orere to !a1 &a%5 !etitioner t3e &eneits 3e re%eive on

a%%ount o its reunan%1 !ro$ra" as 3e unust#1 enri%3e 3i"se# in t3e a"ount o P)*,+9+.( re!resentin$ e-$ratia &eneit !ai on#1 to ter"inate e"!#o1ees on a%%ount o t3e reunan%1 !ro$ra".

Petitioner urt3er %#ai"s t3at !rivate res!onent /as not retren%3e &ut is"isse on a%%ount o !etitionerDs

reunan%1 !ro$ra", t3us, t3e inin$ t3at L!etitioner /as not a&#e to !rovie !roo t3at it tru#1 3a an etensiveen$ineerin$ stu1 on a%%ount o &usiness #osses arisin$ out o "assive oi# ere$u#ation is "is!#a%e t3at

retren%3"ent an reunan%1 are t/o ierent aut3ori@e %auses ter"inatin$ e"!#o1"ent re#ations3i! an t3e

e#e"ents o one o not a!!#1 to t3e ot3er t3at its ri$3t to ter"inate res!onentDs e"!#o1"ent is e"&oie uner

Arti%#e )=9 o t3e ?a&or Coe /3i%3 reFuire e"!#o1ers to $ive noti%e o reunan%1 to t3e /or5er an t3e 6O?E

one "ont3 &eore t3e intene ate o a%tua# ter"ination t3at t3e t/in noti%e reFuire"ent is t3e on#1 %onition !re%eent "anate &1 #a/ &eore an1 va#i reunan%1 "a1 &e ee%te /3i%3 !etitioner 3a u#1 %o"!#ie /it3

t3at ter"ination ue to reunan%1 is a va#i eer%ise o "ana$e"ent !rero$ative /3i%3 %ourts orinari#1 3esitate to

interere /it3 un#ess t3e a%t is "ar5e /it3 &a ait3.

T3e issues or reso#ution are 2'4 /3et3er !rivate res!onentDs ter"ination on t3e $roun o reunan%1 /as

va#i, an 2)4 /3et3er !etitioner $ave a /ritten noti%e to 6O?E as reFuire uner Arti%#e )=9 o t3e ?a&or Coe.

Uner Ru#e 0( o t3e Ru#es o Court, on#1 Fuestions o #a/ "a1 &e raise in t3is Court. Ho/ever, a%tua#

issues "a1 &e %onsiere an reso#ve /3en t3e inin$s o a%ts an t3e %on%#usions o t3e ?a&or Ar&iter are

in%onsistent /it3 t3ose o t3e N?RC an t3e CA,7')8 as o&tainin$ in t3e !resent %ase.

T3e CA %orre%t#1 is"isse 3erein !etitionerDs !etition or certiorari. T3e N?RC i not %o""it $rave a&use

o is%retion in inin$ t3at res!onent /as i##e$a##1 is"isse.

Private res!onent /as is"isse &1 !etitioner on t3e $roun o reunan%1, one o t3e aut3ori@e %auses or is"issa# uner Arti%#e )=9 o t3e ?a&or Coe, to /it:

Arti%#e )=9. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel.- T3e e"!#o1er "a1

a#so ter"inate t3e e"!#o1"ent o an1 e"!#o1ee ue to t3e insta##"ent o #a&or savin$ evi%es,reunan%1, retren%3"ent to !revent #osses or t3e %#osin$ or %essation o o!eration o t3e

esta&#is3"ent or unerta5in$ un#ess t3e %#osin$ is or t3e !ur!ose o %ir%u"ventin$ t3e !rovisions

o t3is Tit#e, b2 ser3in4 a &ritten notice on the &or5ers an6 the Ministr2 of Labor an6

mplo2ment at least one "($ month before the inten6e6 6ate thereof# In %ase o ter"inationue to t3e insta##ation o #a&or savin$ evi%es or reunan%1, t3e /or5er ae%te t3ere&1 s3a## &e

entit#e to a se!aration !a1 eFuiva#ent to at #east one 2'4 "ont3 !a1 or to at #east one 2'4 "ont3

!a1 or ever1 1ear o servi%e, /3i%3ever is 3i$3er. In %ase o retren%3"ent to !revent #osses an in%ases o %#osures or %essation o o!erations o esta&#is3"ent or unerta5in$ not ue to serious &usiness #osses or reverses, t3e se!aration !a1 s3a## &e eFuiva#ent to one 2'4 "ont3 !a1 or at #east

one 3a# 2'B)4 "ont3 !a1 or ever1 1ear o servi%e, /3i%3ever is 3i$3er. A ra%tion o at #east si

24 "ont3s s3a## &e %onsiere one 2'4 /3o#e 1ear 2e"!3asis su!!#ie4.

In Becton Dickinson Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,7'98 %itin$ t3e #eain$ %ase, iltshire

!ile Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,7'08 /e e!#aine t3e nature o reunan%1 as an aut3ori@e

%ause or is"issa# in t3e o##o/in$ "anner:












reunan%1 in an e"!#o1erDs !ersonne# or%e ne%essari#1 or even orinari#1 reers to

u!#i%ation o /or5. T3at no ot3er !erson /as 3o#in$ t3e sa"e !osition t3at !rivate res!onent

3e# !rior to t3e ter"ination o 3is servi%es, oes not s3o/ t3at 3is !osition 3a not &e%o"e

reunant. Inee, in an1 /e## or$ani@e &usiness enter!rise, it /ou# &e sur!risin$ to inu!#i%ation o /or5 an t/o 2)4 or "ore !eo!#e oin$ t3e /or5 o one !erson. e &e#ieve t3at

reunan%1, or !ur!oses o t3e ?a&or Coe, eists /3ere t3e servi%es o an e"!#o1ee are in

e%ess o /3at is reasona&#1 e"ane &1 t3e a%tua# reFuire"ents o t3e enter!rise. Su%%in%t#1

!ut, a !osition is reunant /3ere it is su!er#uous, an su!er#uit1 o a !osition or !ositions "a1 &e t3e out%o"e o a nu"&er o a%tors, su%3 as over3irin$ o /or5ers, e%rease in vo#u"e o

&usiness, or ro!!in$ o a !arti%u#ar !rou%t #ine or servi%e a%tivit1 !revious#1 "anua%ture or

unerta5en &1 t3e enter!rise.7'(8

e are "inu# o t3e ru#e t3at t3e %3ara%teri@ation o an e"!#o1eeDs servi%es as no #on$er ne%essar1 or

sustaina&#e, an t3ereore, !ro!er#1 ter"ina&#e, is an eer%ise o &usiness u$"ent on t3e !art o t3e e"!#o1er, an

t3at t3e /iso" or sounness o su%3 %3ara%teri@ation or e%ision is not su&e%t to is%retionar1 revie/. Ho/ever,

su%3 %3ara%teri@ation "a1 &e ree%te i t3e sa"e is oun to &e in vio#ation o #a/ or is ar&itrar1 or "a#i%ious.7'8

e 3ave 3e# t3at t3e e"!#o1er "ust %o"!#1 /it3 t3e o##o/in$ reFuisites to ensure t3e va#iit1 o t3e

i"!#e"entation o a reunan%1 !ro$ra": '4 a /ritten noti%e serve on &ot3 t3e e"!#o1ees an t3e 6e!art"ent o

?a&or an E"!#o1"ent 26O?E4 at #east one "ont3 !rior to t3e intene ate o retren%3"ent )4 !a1"ent o

se!aration !a1 eFuiva#ent to at #east one "ont3 !a1 or at #east one "ont3 !a1 or ever1 1ear o servi%e, /3i%3ever is3i$3er 94 $oo ait3 in a&o#is3in$ t3e reunant !ositions an 04 air an reasona&#e %riteria in as%ertainin$ /3at

!ositions are to &e e%#are reunant an a%%orin$#1 a&o#is3e.7'+8

In "sufrin, #r. v. $an %i&uel Corporation,7'=8 /e ru#e t3at it is not enou$3 or a %o"!an1 to "ere#1 e%#are

t3at it 3as &e%o"e over"anne. It "ust !rou%e aeFuate !roo o su%3 reunan%1 to usti1 t3e is"issa# o t3e

ae%te e"!#o1ees.

In Panlilio v. National Labor Relations Commission,7'<8 /e 3e# t3at evien%e "ust &e !resente to

su&stantiate reunan%1 su%3 as &ut not #i"ite to t3e ne/ stain$ !attern, easi&i#it1 stuiesB!ro!osa#, on t3e

via&i#it1 o t3e ne/#1 %reate !ositions, o& es%ri!tion an t3e a!!rova# &1 t3e "ana$e"ent o t3e restru%turin$.

In t3e instant %ase, /e in no reversi&#e error %o""itte &1 t3e CA in u!3o#in$ t3e inin$s o t3e N?RC

t3at t3ere /as no su&stantia# evien%e !resente &1 !etitioner to usti1 !rivate res!onents is"issa# ue to

reunan%1. As %orre%t#1 oun &1 t3e CA, !etitionerDs evien%e to s3o/ reunan%1 "ere#1 %onsiste o a %o!1 o

!etitionerDs #etter to t3e 6O?E inor"in$ t3e #atter o its intention to i"!#e"ent a reunan%1 !ro$ra" an not3in$"ore. T3e #etter /3i%3 "ere#1 state t3at !etitioner unertoo5 a revie/, restru%turin$ an strea"#inin$ o its

or$ani@ation /3i%3 resu#te in %onso#iation, a&o#ition an outsour%in$ o %ertain un%tions an /3i%3 resu#te in

ientiie an reunant !ositions instea o si"!#i1in$ its &usiness !ro%ess restru%turin$, oes not satis1 t3ereFuire"ent o su&stantia# evien%e, t3at is, t3e a"ount o evien%e /3i%3 a reasona&#e "in "i$3t a%%e!t as

aeFuate to usti1 a %on%#usion.7)*8

Petitioner ai#e to e"onstrate t3e su!er#uit1 o !rivate res!onentDs !osition as t3ere /as not3in$ in t3e

re%ors t3at /ou# esta&#is3 an1 %on%rete an rea# a%tors re%o$ni@e &1 #a/ an re#evant uris!ruen%e,7)'8 su%3as over3irin$ o /or5ers, e%rease vo#u"e o &usiness, or ro!!in$ o a !arti%u#ar !rou%t #ine or servi%e a%tivit1

!revious#1 "anua%ture or unerta5en &1 t3e enter!rise, /3i%3 /ere ao!te &1 !etitioner in i"!#e"entin$ t3ereunan%1 !ro$ra".

Petitioner a#so ai#e to s3o/ an1 air an reasona&#e %riteria in as%ertainin$ /3at !ositions are reunant an3o/ t3e se#e%tion o e"!#o1ees to &e is"isse /as "ae.

In Capitol ireless, Inc. v. Confesor ,7))8 /e 3ave 3e# t3at in se#e%tin$ t3e e"!#o1ee to &e is"isse, air an

reasona&#e %riteria "ust &e use su%3 as &ut not #i"ite to 2a4 #ess !reerre status, e.& . te"!orar1 e"!#o1ee 2&4
























ei%ien%1 an 2%4 seniorit1. No su%3 a!!raisa# /as one in t3e !resent %ase. T3e a&sen%e o %riteria in t3e se#e%tion

o an e"!#o1ee to &e is"isse reners t3e is"issa# ar&itrar1.

Moreover, !etitioner ai#e to reute !rivate res!onentDs assertion t3at it o!ene !ositions o a%%ountants or 3irin$ to /3i%3 3e %ou# 3ave Fua#iie rat3er t3an &e is"isse. In !etitionerDs Me"oranu" ate Ma1 )=,

'<<+7)98 an >u#1 0, '<<+,7)08 it e%#are va%ant t3e !ositions o Ter"ina# A%%ountant an Interna# Auitor,

res!e%tive#1, t3e "ini"u" reFuire"ents o /3i%3 are &ein$ a%%ountants an 3avin$ 0-( 1ears e!erien%e in 3an#in$

a%%ountin$ an su!ervisor1 un%tions, a"on$ ot3ers. T3ere is no s3o/in$ t3at !rivate res!onent %ou# not !eror"t3e un%tions e"ane o t3e va%ant !ositions %onsierin$ 3is e!erien%e as !etitionerDs Senior A%%ountin$ Ana#1st

or '9 1ears an to /3i%3 3e %ou# &e transerre instea o &ein$ is"isse. e in su%3 3irin$ o a%%ountants

in%onsistent /it3 res!onentDs ter"ination ue to reunan%1.

In a%t, !etitioner e!ress#1 state in its Ans/er to !rivate res!onentDs A!!ea# Me"oranu" i#e /it3 t3e

N?RC t3at Lit "a1 sti## 3ire aitiona# e"!#o1ees so #on$ as it is not or t3e !osition !revious#1 e%#are an

eter"ine to &e reunant.7)(8

As /e ru#e, reunan%1 eists /3ere t3e servi%es o an e"!#o1ee are in e%ess o /3at is reasona&#1

e"ane &1 t3e a%tua# reFuire"ent o t3e enter!rise. 7)8 It is t3e &uren o !etitioner, as e"!#o1er, to !rove t3e

a%tua# an #e$a# &asis or t3e is"issa# o its e"!#o1ees on t3e $roun o reunan%1.7)+8

T3e CA %o""itte no reversi&#e error /3en it oun t3at !etitioner ai#e to is%3ar$e t3e &uren o !rovin$res!onentDs is"issa# as va#i.

T3ere is "erit in !etitionerDs %#ai" t3at t3e CADs inin$ Lt3at it 2!etitioner4 ai#e to !rovie !roo t3at it tru#1

3a an etensive reen$ineerin$ stu1 on a%%ount o &usiness #osses arisin$ out o "assive oi# ere$u#ation is"is!#a%e %onsierin$ t3at Arti%#e )=9 o t3e ?a&or Coe oes not reFuire t3at t3e e"!#o1er s3ou# &e suerin$

inan%ia# #osses &eore 3e %an ter"inate t3e servi%es o t3e e"!#o1ee on t3e $roun o reunan%1.7)=8 Nevert3e#ess,

t3e CA inin$ on t3is "atter oes not etra%t ro" t3e a%t t3at !etitioner ai#e to s3o/ !roo o air an reasona&#e

%riteria or t3e i"!#e"entation o a va#i reunan%1 !ro$ra". T3us, /3et3er it is retren%3"ent or reunan%1, or an1 o t3e ot3er aut3ori@e %auses, no e"!#o1ee "a1 &e is"isse /it3out o&servan%e o t3e una"enta#s o air

!#a1.7)<8

Petitioner %o""itte a ata# error /3en it ai#e to $ive a /ritten noti%e to 6O?E as reFuire uner Arti%#e )=9o t3e ?a&or Coe. A## t3ree, t3e ?A, N?RC an t3e CA, oun t3e a&sen%e o noti%e sent &1 !etitioner to 6O?E

one "ont3 &eore t3e intene ate o !rivate res!onentDs ter"ination. 3i#e !etitioner %#ai"s t3at it sent a noti%e

to t3e 6O?E t3rou$3 a #etter ate >une 9*, '<<+, !etitioner ai#e to s3o/ t3at t3e sa"e /as a%tua##1 re%eive &1

6O?E. T3e !ur!ose o t3e /ritten noti%e to t3e 6O?E is to $ive it t3e o!!ortunit1 to as%ertain t3e verit1 o t3ea##e$e aut3ori@e %ause o ter"ination.79*8

PetitionerDs insisten%e t3at its /ritten noti%e o reunan%1 !ro$ra" !er its O%to&er '<< #etter aresse to

6O?E is a su&stantia# %o"!#ian%e /it3 t3e noti%e reFuire"ent, is not !ersuasive sin%e t3e sai #etter "ere#1 stateits plan o i"!#e"entin$ a reunan%1 !ro$ra" &ut i not %ontain t3e etai#s ne%essar1 to ee%t t3e !ro$ra" su%3

as t3e reason or inin$ %ertain !ortions as reunant, t3e na"e o t3e e"!#o1ees to &e ter"inate an t3e a%tua#

ate o ter"ination. In a%t, !etitioner in its O%to&er #etter /rote t3at it /ou# !rovie 6O?E /it3 a #ist o ae%tee"!#o1ees as it i"!#e"ents ea%3 !3ase o t3e reunan%1 !ro$ra" /3i%3 it ai#e to o.

PetitionerDs ai#ure to s3o/ an aut3ori@e %ause or !rivate res!onentDs ter"ination is sui%ient to e%#are t3eis"issa# i##e$a#.

PetitionerDs %#ai" t3at !rivate res!onent %onsente to 3is ter"ination &1 a%%e!tin$ 3is se!aration !a1

eserves s%ant %onsieration. Private res!onent 3a no ot3er re%ourse &ut to a%%e!t 3is se!aration !a1 sin%e

!etitionerDs #etter "ae it %#ear t3at 3is !osition 3a &een eter"ine to &e reunant an 3is servi%es s3a## &eter"inate ee%tive >u#1 9', '<<+. As !rivate res!onent /as is"isse a##e$e#1 ue to reunan%1, 3e is entit#e

to se!aration !a1 uner Arti%#e )=9 o t3e ?a&or Coe. An sin%e t3ere /as no etra %onsieration or t3e !rivate

res!onent to $ive u! 3is e"!#o1"ent, su%3 unerta5in$ %annot &e a##o/e to &ar t3e a%tion or i##e$a# is"issa#.79'8

























Petitioner asserts t3at !rivate res!onentDs reinstate"ent is no #on$er !ossi&#e sin%e 3is or"er !osition /as

a#rea1 a&o#is3e /3en it /as e%#are reunant. Nota&#1, t3is "atter /as on#1 raise or t3e irst ti"e in

!etitionerDs "otion or re%onsieration79)8 o t3e assai#e CA e%ision ate Ma1 '(, )**9. Private res!onent, in 3is%o""ent7998 to t3e "otion, %ontens t3at !etitionerDs %#ai" is ou&tu# %onsierin$ t3at t3e esta&#is3"ent /3ere 3e is

to &e reinstate 3as not %ease o!eration or %#ose. T3e CA isre$are t3e %#ai" o !etitioner t3at !rivate

res!onentDs reinstate"ent is no #on$er !ossi&#e an enie t3e "otion or re%onsieration inin$ no %o$ent reason

to re%onsier its ear#ier e%ision.

T3e issue o /3et3er !rivate res!onentDs reinstate"ent to 3is or"er or su&stantia##1 eFuiva#ent !osition is

no #on$er !ossi&#e, is a a%tua# "atter /3i%3 is not a !ro!er su&e%t o t3e !resent !etition or revie/

on certiorari sin%e /e are not a trier o a%ts. T3e !artiesD %on#i%tin$ %#ai"s on t3is "atter %an &e &est eter"ine &1 t3e ?a&or Ar&iter u!on t3e ee%ution o t3e u$"ent ater our 6e%ision s3a## 3ave &e%o"e ina# an ee%utor1.

;ina##1, /e in "erit in !etitionerDs %#ai" t3at !rivate res!onent s3ou# return t3e a"ount o P)*,+9+.(

re!resentin$ e-$ratia &eneit !ai on#1 to ter"inate e"!#o1ees on a%%ount o t3e reunan%1 !ro$ra". 3i#e /enote t3at t3is "atter is raise on#1 or t3e irst ti"e, /e 3ave a"!#e aut3orit1 to revie/ an reso#ve it i /e in t3e

%onsieration an eter"ination o t3e sa"e essentia# an inis!ensa&#e in orer 7908 to arrive at a ust e%ision in t3e

%ase. T3e e-$ratia &eneit s3ou# &e returne o##o/in$ t3e !rin%i!#e a$ainst unust enri%3"ent /3i%3 is 3e#

a!!#i%a&#e in #a&or %ases.79(8

7HR8OR, t3e !etition is DNID. T3e 6e%ision ate Ma1 '(, )**9 an t3e Reso#ution ate Au$ust

)', )**9 o t3e Court o A!!ea#s in CA-G.R. SP No. (0*( are A88IRMD. Ho/ever, in t3e 3i$3er interest o

usti%e, !rivate res!onent is orere to return t3e a"ount o P)*,+9+.(, re!resentin$ t3e e-$ratia &eneit !ai to3i" &1 !etitioner.

No %osts.

SO ORDRD.













Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 181738 January 30, 2013

GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, Petitioner,vs.VIOLETA L. VIAJAR, Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

REES, J.:

This is a Petition" for Revie# on !ertiorari under Rule $% of the Rules of !ourt filed b& petitioner 'eneralMillin( !orporation )'M!*, as+in( the !ourt to set aside the Decision dated Septe-ber ", / and theResolution0dated 1anuar& 0, 2 of the !ourt of 3ppeals )!3* in !34'.R. SP No. "/0$5 and toreinstate the Decision$dated October 2, % and Resolution% dated 1anuar& 0", 6 of the National7abor Relations !o--ission )N7R!* in N7R! !ase No. V4$"64%.

The antecedent facts are as follo#s8

'M! is a do-estic corporation #ith principal office in Ma+ati !it& and a -anufacturin( plant in 7apu47apu!it&.

In October 0, 'M! ter-inated the services of thirteen )"0* e-plo&ees for redundanc&, includin(herein respondent, Violeta Via9ar )Via9ar*. 'M! alle(ed that it has been (raduall& do#nsi:in( its Vis-in)Visa&as4Mindanao* Operations in !ebu #here a si:eable nu-ber of positions beca-e redundant over aperiod of ti-e.6

On Dece-ber , 0, Via9ar filed a !o-plaint/ for Ille(al Dis-issal #ith da-a(es a(ainst 'M!, its;u-an Resource Depart-ent );RD* Mana(er, 1ohnn& T. 3l-ocera )3l-ocera*, and Purchasin(Mana(er, 1oel Paulino before the Re(ional 3rbitration <ranch )R3<* No. VII, N7R!, !ebu !it&.

In her Position Paper ,2 Via9ar alle(ed that she #as e-plo&ed b& 'M! on 3u(ust 6, "=/= as Invoicin(!ler+. Throu(h the &ears, the respondent held various positions in the co-pan& until she beca-ePurchasin( Staff.

On October 0, 0, Via9ar received a 7etter4Me-orandu- dated October /, 0 fro- 'M!, throu(h 3l-ocera, infor-in( her that her services #ere no lon(er needed, effective Nove-ber 0, 0 becauseher position as Purchasin( Staff at the Purchasin( 'roup, !ebu Operations #as dee-ed redundant.I--ediatel& thereafter, the respondent consulted her i--ediate superior at that ti-e, Thaddeus O&as,

#ho told her that he too #as shoc+ed upon learnin( about it.=

>hen Via9ar reported for #or+ on October 0", 0, al-ost a -onth before the effectivit& of herseverance fro- the co-pan&, the (uard on dut& barred her fro- enterin( 'M!?s pre-ises. She #as alsodenied access to her office co-puter and #as restricted fro- punchin( her dail& ti-e record in the bund&cloc+."

On Nove-ber /, 0, Via9ar #as invited to the ;RD !ebu Office #here she #as as+ed to si(n certaindocu-ents, #hich turned out to be an @3pplication for Retire-ent and <enefits.@ The respondent refused

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_181738_2013.html#fnt1



























to si(n and sou(ht clarification because she did not appl& for retire-ent and instead asserted that herservices #ere ter-inated for alle(ed redundanc&. 3l-ocera told her that her si(nature on the 3pplicationfor Retire-ent and <enefits #as needed to process her separation pa&. The respondent also clai-ed thatbet#een the period of 1ul& $, 0 and October "0, 0, 'M! hired fifteen )"%* ne# e-plo&ees #hicharoused her suspicion that her dis-issal #as not necessar&."" 3t the ti-e of her ter-ination, therespondent #as receivin( the salar& rate ofP"=,6%".$" per -onth."

For its part, the petitioner insisted that Via9ar?s dis-issal #as due to the redundanc& of her position. 'M!reasoned out that it #as forced to ter-inate the services of the respondent because of the econo-icsetbac+s the co-pan& #as sufferin( #hich affected the co-pan&?s profitabilit&, and the continuin( rise ofits operatin( and interest eApenditures. Redundanc& #as part of the petitioner?s concrete and actual costreduction -easures. 'M! also presented the reBuired @stablish-ent Ter-ination Report@ #hich it filedbefore the Depart-ent of 7abor and -plo&-ent )DO7* on October 2, 0, involvin( thirteen )"0* ofits e-plo&ees, includin( Via9ar. SubseBuentl&, 'M! issued to the respondent t#o )* chec+s respectivel&a-ountin( to P$$,%0. andP","".0% as her separation pa&."0

On 3pril "2, %, the 7abor 3rbiter )73* of the N7R! R3< No. VII, !ebu !it&, rendered a Decision, thedecretal portion of #hich reads8

>;RFOR, fore(oin( considered, 9ud(-ent is hereb& rendered declarin( that respondents acted in(ood faith in ter-inatin( the co-plainant fro- the service due to redundanc& of #or+s, thus,co-plainant?s refusal to accept the pa&-ent of her allo#ed separation pa& and other benefits under thela# is NOT 1CSTIFID both in fact and la#, and so, therefore co-plainant?s case for ille(al dis-issala(ainst the herein respondents and so are co-plainant?s -onetar& clai-s are hereb& orderedDISMISSD for lac+ of -erit.

SO ORDRD."$

The 73 found that the respondent #as properl& notified on October 0, 0 throu(h a 7etter4Me-orandu- dated October /, 0, si(ned b& 'M!?s ;RD Mana(er 3l-ocera, that her position asPurchasin( Staff had been declared redundant. It also found that the petitioner sub-itted to the DO7 onOctober 2, 0 the @stablish-ent Ter-ination Report.@ The 73 even faulted the respondent for not

Buestionin( the co-pan&?s action before the DO7 Re(ional Office, Re(ion VII, !ebu !it& so as toco-pel the petitioner to prove that Via9ar?s position #as indeed redundant. It ruled that the petitionerco-plied #ith the reBuire-ents under 3rticle 20 of the 7abor !ode, considerin( that the nation #as theneAperiencin( an econo-ic do#nturn and that 'M! -ust adopt -easures for its survival."%

Via9ar appealed the aforesaid decision to the N7R!. On October 2, %, the N7R! pro-ul(ated itsdecision, the dispositive portion of #hich reads8

>;RFOR, pre-ises considered, the Decision of the 7abor 3rbiter declarin( the validit& ofco-plainant?s ter-ination due to redundanc& is hereb& 3FFIRMD. Respondent 'eneral Millin(!orporation is hereb& ordered to pa& co-plainant?s separation pa& in the a-ount of P$6",$6$.0/.

SO ORDRD."6

The N7R!, ho#ever, stated that it did not a(ree #ith the 73 that Via9ar should be faulted for failin( toBuestion the petitioner?s declaration of redundanc& before the DO7 Re(ional Office, Re(ion VII, !ebu!it&. It #as not i-perative for Via9ar to challen(e the validit& of her ter-ination due toredundanc&."/ Not#ithstandin(, the N7R! affir-ed the findin(s of the 73 that Via9ar?s dis-issal #as le(alconsiderin( that 'M! co-plied #ith the reBuire-ents provided for under 3rticle 20 of the 7abor !odeand eAistin( 9urisprudence, particularl& citin( 3sian 3lcohol !orporation v. N7R!."2 The N7R! furtherstated that Via9ar #as a#are of 'M!?s @reduction -ode,@ as sho#n in the 'M! Vis-in Manpo#er!o-ple-ent, as follo#s8





















ear Manpo#er ProfileNo. of -plo&ees

Ter-inated )Redundanc&*

/=%

" /2

/06 $"0 /" $

$ 6=/ "6

% 6=6 )3s of 1une %* 6"=

The N7R! stated that the characteri:ation of positions as redundant is an eAercise of the e-plo&er?sbusiness 9ud(-ent and prero(ative. It also ruled that the petitioner did not eAercise this prero(ative in badfaith and that the pa&-ent of separation pa& in the a-ount of P$6",$6$.0/ #as in co-pliance #ith 3rticle20 of the 7abor !ode.

Respondent Via9ar filed a Motion for Reconsideration #hich #as denied b& the N7R! in its Resolution

dated 1anuar& 0", 6.

Cndaunted, Via9ar filed a petition for certiorari before the !3. In the no# assailed Decision datedSepte-ber ", /, the !3 (ranted the petition, reversin( the decision of the N7R! in the follo#in(-anner8

>;RFOR, pre-ises considered, this Petition for !ertiorari is 'R3NTD. The Decision, dated 2October %, and Resolution, dated 0" 1anuar& 6 respectivel&, of public respondent National 7aborRelations !o--ission4Fourth Division, !ebu !it&, in N7R! !ase No. V4$"64% )R3< VII4"4$=%40*are ST 3SID. 3 ne# 9ud(-ent is entered D!73RIN' the dis-issal I77'37 and orderin( respondentto reinstate petitioner #ithout loss of seniorit& ri(hts and other privile(es #ith full bac+#a(es inclusive ofallo#ances and other benefits co-puted fro- the ti-e she #as dis-issed on 0 Nove-ber 0 up tothe date of actual reinstate-ent. Further, -oral and eAe-plar& da-a(es, in the a-ount of Fift& ThousandPesos )EP%,.* each5 and attorne&?s fees eBuivalent to ten percent )"G* of the total -onetar&a#ard, are a#arded.

!osts a(ainst respondent.

SO ORDRD."

3((rieved b& the reversal of the N7R! decision, 'M! filed a -otion for reconsideration. ;o#ever, in itsResolution dated 1anuar& 0, 2, the !3 denied the sa-e5 hence, this petition.

The petitioner raises the follo#in( issues, to #it8

I. T; D!ISION OF SPTM<R ", / 3ND T; RSO7CTION OF 13NC3R 0, 2OF T; !OCRT OF 3PP37S 3R !ONTR3R TO 73> 3ND ST3<7IS;D1CRISPRCDN!.

II. T; D!ISION OF SPTM<R ", / 3ND T; RSO7CTION OF 13NC3R 0, 2OF T; !OCRT OF 3PP37S VIO73T T; 73> 3ND ST3<7IS;D 1CRISPRCDN! ONT; O<SRV3N! OF RSP!T 3ND FIN37IT TO F3!TC37 FINDIN'S OF T;N3TION37 73<OR R73TIONS !OMMISSION.









III. T; !OCRT OF 3PP37S !OMMITTD 'R3V 3<CS OF DIS!RTION IN ITSD!ISION OF SPTM<R ", / 3ND RSO7CTION OF 13NC3R 0, 2 3S T;S3M 3R !ONTR3R TO T; VIDN! ON R!ORD.

The petition is denied.

The petitioner ar(ues that the factual findin(s of the N7R!, affir-in( that of the 73 -ust be accordedrespect and finalit& as it is supported b& evidence on record. <oth the 73 and the N7R! found thepetitioner?s evidence sufficient to ter-inate the e-plo&-ent of respondent on the (round of redundanc&.The evidence also sho#s that 'M! has co-plied #ith the procedural and substantive reBuire-ents for avalid ter-ination. There #as, therefore, no reason for the !3 to disturb the factual findin(s of the N7R!.0

The rule is that factual findin(s of Buasi49udicial a(encies such as the N7R! are (enerall& accorded notonl& respect, but at ti-es, even finalit& because of the special +no#led(e and eApertise (ained b& thesea(encies fro- handlin( -atters fallin( under their speciali:ed 9urisdiction.$ It is also settled that this !ourtis not a trier of facts and does not nor-all& e-bar+ in the evaluation of evidence adduced durin(trial.% This rule, ho#ever, allo#s for eAceptions. One of these eAceptions covers instances #hen thefindin(s of fact of the trial court, or of the Buasi49udicial a(encies concerned, are conflictin( orcontradictor& #ith those of the !3. >hen there is a variance in the factual findin(s, it is incu-bent upon

the !ourt to re4eAa-ine the facts once a(ain.6

Further-ore, another eAception to the (eneral rule is #hen the said findin(s are not supported b&substantial evidence or if on the basis of the available facts, the inference or conclusion arrived at is-anifestl& erroneous./Factual findin(s of ad-inistrative a(encies are not infallible and #ill be set aside#hen the& fail the test of arbitrariness.2 In the instant case, the !ourt a(rees #ith the !3 that theconclusions arrived at b& the 73 and the N7R! are -anifestl& erroneous.

'M! clai-s that Via9ar #as validl& dis-issed on the (round of redundanc& #hich is one of the authori:edcauses for ter-ination of e-plo&-ent. The petitioner asserts that it has observed the procedure providedb& la# and that the sa-e #as done in (ood faith. To 9ustif& the respondent?s dis-issal, the petitionerpresented8 )i* the notification 7etter4Me-orandu- dated October /, 0 addressed to the respondent#hich #as received on October 0, 05= )ii* the @stablish-ent Ter-ination Report@ as prescribed b&

the DO750 )iii* the t#o )* chec+s issued in the respondent?s na-e a-ountin( to P$$,%0.and P","".0% as separation pa&50" and )iv* the list of dis-issed e-plo&ees as of 1une 6, 6 to sho#that 'M! #as in a @reduction -ode.@0 <oth the 73 and the N7R! found these sufficient to prove that thedis-issal on the (round of redundanc& #as done in (ood faith.

The !ourt does not a(ree.

3rticle 20 of the 7abor !ode provides that redundanc& is one of the authori:ed causes for dis-issal. Itreads8

3rticle 20. !losure of establish-ent and reduction of personnel. H The e-plo&er -a& also ter-inate thee-plo&-ent of an& e-plo&ee due to the install-ent of labor4savin( devices, redundanc&, retrench-ent toprevent losses or the closin( or cessation of operation of the establish-ent or underta+in( unless theclosin( is for the purpose of circu-ventin( the provisions of this Title, b& servin( a #ritten notice on the#or+er and the Ministr& of 7abor and -plo&-ent at least one )"* -onth before the intended datethereof. In case of ter-ination due to the installation of labor4savin( devices or redundanc&, the #or+eraffected thereb& shall be entitled to a separation pa& eBuivalent to at least his one )"* -onth pa& or to atleast one )"* -onth pa& for ever& &ear of service, #hichever is hi(her. In case of retrench-ent to preventlosses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establish-ent or underta+in( not due toserious business losses or reverses, the separation pa& shall be eBuivalent to one )"* -onth pa& or atleast one4half )"* -onth pa& for ever& &ear of service, #hichever is hi(her. 3 fraction of at least siA )6*-onths shall be considered one )"* #hole &ear. )-phasis supplied*





























Fro- the above provision, it is i-perative that the e-plo&er -ust co-pl& #ith the reBuire-ents for a validi-ple-entation of the co-pan&?s redundanc& pro(ra-, to #it8 )a* the e-plo&er -ust serve a #rittennotice to the affected e-plo&ees and the DO7 at least one )"* -onth before the intended date ofretrench-ent5 )b* the e-plo&er -ust pa& the e-plo&ees a separation pa& eBuivalent to at least one-onth pa& or at least one -onth pa& for ever& &ear of service, #hichever is hi(her5 )c* the e-plo&er -ustabolish the redundant positions in (ood faith5 and )d* the e-plo&er -ust set fair and reasonable criteria inascertainin( #hich positions are redundant and -a& be abolished.00

In S-art !o--unications, Inc., v. 3stor(a,0$ the !ourt held that8

The nature of redundanc& as an authori:ed cause for dis-issal is eAplained in the leadin( case of>iltshire File !o., Inc. v. National 7abor Relations !o--ission, vi:8

@A A A redundanc& in an e-plo&er?s personnel force necessaril& or even ordinaril& refers to duplication of#or+. That no other person #as holdin( the sa-e position that private respondent held prior toter-ination of his services does not sho# that his position had not beco-e redundant. Indeed, in an& #ellor(ani:ed business enterprise, it #ould be surprisin( to find duplication of #or+ and t#o )* or -orepeople doin( the #or+ of one person. >e believe that redundanc&, for purposes of the 7abor !ode, eAists#here the services of an e-plo&ee are in eAcess of #hat is reasonabl& de-anded b& the actual

reBuire-ents of the enterprise. Succinctl& put, a position is redundant #here it is superfluous, andsuperfluit& of a position or positions -a& be the outco-e of a nu-ber of factors, such as overhirin( of#or+ers, decreased volu-e of business, or droppin( of a particular product line or service activit&previousl& -anufactured or underta+en b& the enterprise.@

The characteri:ation of an e-plo&ee?s services as superfluous or no lon(er necessar& and, therefore,properl& ter-inable, is an eAercise of business 9ud(-ent on the part of the e-plo&er. The #isdo- andsoundness of such characteri:ation or decision is not sub9ect to discretionar& revie# provided, of course,that a violation of la# or arbitrar& or -alicious action is not sho#n.0% )-phasis supplied and citationso-itted*

>hile it is true that the @characteri:ation of an e-plo&ee?s services as superfluous or no lon(er necessar&and, therefore, properl& ter-inable, is an eAercise of business 9ud(-ent on the part of the

e-plo&er,@06 the eAercise of such 9ud(-ent, ho#ever, -ust not be in violation of the la#, and -ust not bearbitrar& or -alicious. The !ourt has al#a&s stressed that a co-pan& cannot si-pl& declare redundanc&#ithout basis. To eAhibit its (ood faith and that there #as a fair and reasonable criteria in ascertainin(redundant positions, a co-pan& clai-in( to be over -anned -ust produce adeBuate proof of the sa-e.

>e reiterate #hat #as held in !alteA )Phils.*, Inc. v. N7R!8 0/

In 3sufrin, 1r. v. San Mi(uel !orporation, #e ruled that it is not enou(h for a co-pan& to -erel& declarethat it has beco-e over-anned )sic*. It -ust produce adeBuate proof of such redundanc& to 9ustif& thedis-issal of the affected e-plo&ees.

In Panlilio v. National 7abor Relations !o--ission, #e held that evidence -ust be presented tosubstantiate redundanc& such as but not li-ited to the ne# staffin( pattern, feasibilit& studiesproposal, onthe viabilit& of the ne#l& created positions, 9ob description and the approval b& the -ana(e-ent of therestructurin(.02 )-phasis supplied and citations o-itted*

In the instant case, the !ourt a(rees #ith the !3 #hen it held that the petitioner failed to presentsubstantial proof to support 'M!?s (eneral alle(ations of redundanc&. 3s sho#n fro- the records, thepetitioner si-pl& presented as its evidence of (ood faith and co-pliance #ith the la# the notification letter to respondent Via9ar50= the @stablish-ent Ter-ination Report@ it sub-itted to the DO7 Office5 $ the t#o)* chec+s issued in the respondent?s na-e a-ountin( to P$$,%0. and P","".0%5$" and the list of
























ter-inated e-plo&ees as of 1une 6, 6.$ >e a(ree #ith the !3 that these are not enou(h proof for thevalid ter-ination of Via9ar?s e-plo&-ent on the (round of redundanc&.

The letter4-e-orandu- #hich contains (eneral alle(ations is not enou(h to convince this !ourt thatVia9ar?s ter-ination of e-plo&-ent due to redundanc& #as #arranted under the circu-stances. There isno sho#in( that 'M! -ade an evaluation of the eAistin( positions and their effect to the co-pan&.

Neither did 'M! eAert efforts to present tan(ible proof that it #as eAperiencin( business slo# do#n orover hirin(. The @stablish-ent Ter-ination Report@ it sub-itted to the DO7 Office did not account foran&thin( to 9ustif& declarin( the positions redundant. The !ourt notes that the list of ter-inated e-plo&eespresented b& 'M! #as a list ta+en as of 1une 6, 6 or al-ost three &ears after the respondent #asille(all& dis-issed and al-ost a &ear after the 73 pro-ul(ated its decision. >hile the petitioner had beenharpin( that it #as on a @reduction -ode@ of its e-plo&ees, it has not presented an& evidence )such asne# staffin( pattern, feasibilit& studies or proposal, viabilit& of ne#l& created positions, 9ob description andthe approval of the -ana(e-ent of the restructurin(,$0audited financial docu-ents li+e balance sheets,annual inco-e taA returns and others*$$ #hich could readil& sho# that the co-pan&?s declaration ofredundant positions #as 9ustified. Such proofs, if presented, #ould suffice to sho# the (ood faith on thepart of the e-plo&er or that this business prero(ative #as not #hi-sicall& eAercised in ter-inatin(respondent?s e-plo&-ent on the (round of redundanc&. Cnfortunatel&, these are #antin( in the instantcase. The petitioner onl& advanced a self4servin( (eneral clai- that it #as eAperiencin( businessreverses and that there #as a need to reduce its -anpo#er co-ple-ent.

On the other hand, the respondent presented proof that the petitioner had been hirin( ne# e-plo&ees#hile it #as firin( the old ones,$% ne(atin( the clai- of redundanc&. It -ust, ho#ever, be pointed out thatin ter-ination cases, li+e the one before us, the burden of provin( that the dis-issal of the e-plo&ees#as for a valid and authori:ed cause rests on the e-plo&er. It #as incu-bent upon the petitioner to sho#b& substantial evidence that the ter-ination of the e-plo&-ent of the respondent #as validl& -ade andfailure to dischar(e that dut& #ould -ean that the dis-issal is not 9ustified and therefore ille(al.$6

Further-ore, the !ourt cannot overloo+ the fact that Via9ar #as prohibited fro- enterin( the co-pan&pre-ises even before the effectivit& date of ter-ination5 and #as co-pelled to si(n an @3pplication forRetire-ent and <enefits.@ These acts eAhibit the petitioner?s bad faith since it cannot be denied that therespondent #as still entitled to report for #or+ until Nove-ber 0, 0. The de-and for her to si(n the

@3pplication for Retire-ent and <enefits@ also contravenes the fact that she #as ter-inated due toredundanc&. Indeed, there is a difference bet#een voluntar& retire-ent of an e-plo&ee and forcedter-ination due to authori:ed causes.

In Juevedo v. <en(uet lectric !ooperative, Incorporated,$/ this !ourt eAplained the difference bet#eenretire-ent and ter-ination due to redundanc&, to #it8

>hile ter-ination of e-plo&-ent and retire-ent fro- service are co--on -odes of endin( e-plo&-ent,the& are -utuall& eAclusive, #ith var&in( 9uridical bases and resultin( benefits. Retire-ent fro- service iscontractual )i.e. based on the bilateral a(ree-ent of the e-plo&er and e-plo&ee*, #hile ter-ination ofe-plo&-ent is statutor& )i.e. (overned b& the 7abor !ode and other related la#s as to its (rounds,benefits and procedure*. The benefits resultin( fro- ter-ination var&, dependin( on the cause. Forretire-ent, 3rticle 2/ of the 7abor !ode (ives lee#a& to the parties to stipulate above a floor of benefits.

A A A A

The line bet#een voluntar& and involuntar& retire-ent is thin but it is one #hich this !ourt has dra#n.Voluntar& retire-ent cuts e-plo&-ent ties leavin( no residual e-plo&er liabilit&5 involuntar& retire-enta-ounts to a dischar(e, renderin( the e-plo&er liable for ter-ination #ithout cause. The e-plo&ee?sintent is the focal point of anal&sis. In deter-inin( such intent, the fairness of the process (overnin( theretire-ent decision, the pa&-ent of stipulated benefits, and the absence of bad(es of inti-idation orcoercion are relevant para-eters.$2 )-phasis supplied and citations o-itted*



















!learl&, the instant case is not about retire-ent since the ter- has its peculiar -eanin( and is (overnedb& 3rticle 2/ of the 7abor !ode. Rather, this is a case of ter-ination due to redundanc& under 3rticle 20of the 7abor !ode. Thus, the de-and of 'M! for the respondent to si(n an @3pplication for Retire-entand <enefits@ is reall& suspect.

Finall&, the !ourt a(rees #ith the !3 that the a#ard of -oral and eAe-plar& da-a(es is

proper.1âwphi1 The !ourt has a#arded -oral da-a(es in ter-ination cases #hen bad faith, -alice orfraud attend the e-plo&ee?s dis-issal or #here the act oppresses labor, or #here it #as done in a-anner contrar& to -orals, (ood custo-s or public polic&.$= >e Buote #ith favor the findin(s of the !38

>e also a#ard -oral and eAe-plar& da-a(es to petitioner. >hile it is true that (ood faith is presu-ed,the circu-stances surroundin( the dis-issal of petitioner ne(ate its eAistence. Moral da-a(es -a& berecovered onl& #here the dis-issal of the e-plo&ee #as tainted b& bad faith or fraud, or #here itconstituted an act oppressive to labor, and done in a -anner contrar& to -orals, (ood custo-s or publicpolic& #hile eAe-plar& da-a(es are recoverable onl& if the dis-issal #as done in a #anton, oppressive,or -alevolent -anner. To reiterate, i--ediatel& after receipt of her ter-ination letter #hich #as effectiveon 0 Nove-ber 0, petitioner #as no lon(er treated as an e-plo&ee of respondent as earl& as the0"st of October 05 she #as alread& barred fro- enterin( the co-pan& pre-ises5 she #as deprivedaccess to her office co-puter5 and she #as eAcluded fro- the band& Esic cloc+. She #as also -ade to

si(n docu-ents, includin( an @3PP7I!3TION FOR RTIRMNT 3ND <NFITS@ in the (uise ofpa&-ent of her separation pa&. >hen petitioner confronted her i--ediate superior re(ardin( herter-ination, the latter?s shoc+ a((ravated her confusion and sufferin(. She also learned about thee-plo&-ent of a nu-ber of ne# e-plo&ees, several of #ho- #ere even e-plo&ed in her for-erdepart-ent. Petitioner li+e#ise suffered -ental torture brou(ht about b& her ter-ination even thou(h itscause #as not clear and substantiated.% )!itations o-itted*

>;RFOR, the petition is DNID. The Decision dated Septe-ber ", / of the !ourt of 3ppeals,as #ell as its Resolution dated 1anuar& 0, 2 in !34'.R. SP No. "/0$, are hereb& 3FFIRMD.

SO ORDRD.










Manila

T;IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 822!" #$%ruary 7, 1""1

&ILTS'IRE #ILE CO., INC., petitioner,vs.T'E NATIONAL LA(OR RELATIONS COMMISSION an) VICENTE T. ONG, respondents.

Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for petitioner.

Jose R. Millares & Associates for private respondent.

#ELICIANO, J.:p

Private respondent Vicente T. On( #as the Sales Mana(er of petitioner >iltshire File !o., Inc.)@>iltshire@* fro- "6 March "=2" up to "2 1une "=2%. 3s such, he received a -onthl& salar& ofP"$,0/%. eAcludin( co--issions fro- sales #hich avera(ed P%,. a -onth. ;e also en9o&edvacation leave #ith pa& eBuivalent to P/,"2/,% per &ear, as #ell as hospitali:ation privile(es to theeAtent of P",. per &ear.

On "0 1une "=2%, upon private respondentKs return fro- a business and pleasure trip abroad, he #asinfor-ed b& the President of petitioner >iltshire that his services #ere bein( ter-inated. Privaterespondent -aintains that he tried to (et an eAplanation fro- -ana(e-ent of his dis-issal but to no

avail. On "2 1une "=2%, #hen private respondent a(ain tried to spea+ #ith the President of >iltshire, theco-pan&Ks securit& (uard handed hi- a letter #hich for-all& infor-ed hi- that his services #ere bein(ter-inated upon the (round of redundanc&.

Private respondent filed, on " October "=2%, a co-plaint before the 7abor 3rbiter for ille(al dis-issalalle(in( that his position could not possibl& be redundant because nobod& )save hi-self* in the co-pan&#as then perfor-in( the sa-e duties. Private respondent further contended that retrenchin( hi- couldnot prevent further losses because it #as in fact throu(h his re-ar+able perfor-ance as Sales Mana(erthat the !o-pan& had an unprecedented increase in do-estic -ar+et share the precedin( &ear. For thatacco-plish-ent, he continued, he #as pro-oted to Mar+etin( Mana(er and #as authori:ed b& thePresident to hire four )$* Sales Aecutives five )%* -onths prior to his ter-ination.

In its ans#er, petitioner co-pan& alle(ed that the ter-ination of respondentKs services #as a cost4cuttin(

-easure8 that in Dece-ber "=2$, the co-pan& had eAperienced an unusuall& lo# volu-e of orders8 andthat it #as in fact forced to rotate its e-plo&ees in order to save the co-pan&. Despite the rotation ofe-plo&ees, petitioner alle(ed5 it continued to eAperience financial losses and private respondentKsposition, Sales Mana(er of the co-pan&, beca-e redundant.

On Dece-ber "=26, durin( the proceedin(s before the 7abor 3rbiter, petitioner, in a letter 1 addressedto the Re(ional Director of the then Ministr& of 7abor and -plo&-ent, notified that official that effective 1anuar& "=2/, petitioner #ould close its doors per-anentl& due to substantial business losses.



In a decision dated "" March "=2/, the 7abor 3rbiter declared the ter-ination of private respondentKsservices ille(al and ordered petitioner to pa& private respondent bac+#a(es in the a-ount ofP==,., unpaid salaries in the a-ount of P,0%."", accu-ulated sic+ and vacation leaves in thea-ount of P",%$0.=", hospitali:ation benefit pac+a(e in the a-ount of P",., unpaid co--issionin the a-ount of P%/,%,, -oral da-a(es in the a-ount of P",. and attorne&Ks fees in thea-ount of P%",60=.6.

On appeal b& petitioner >iltshire, the National 7abor Relations !o--ission )@N7R!@* affir-ed in toto on= Februar& "=22 the decision of the 7abor 3rbiter. The N7R! held that8

The ter-ination letter clearl& spelled out that the -ain reason in ter-inatin( the servicesof co-plainant is R!"#!A#$ and not retrench-ent.

The supposed duplication of #or+ of herein co-plainant and Mr. Deliva, the Vice4President is absent that #ould 9ustif& redundanc&. . . .

On the clai- for -oral da-a(es, the N7R! pointed out that the effective date of private respondentKster-ination #as "2 1ul& "=2%, althou(h it #as onl& "2 1une "=2% that he received the letter of ter-ination,and concluded that he #as not (iven an& opportunit& to eAplain his position on the -atter. The N7R! held

that the ter-ination #as attended b& -alice and bad faith on the part of petitioner, considerin( the-anner of private respondent #as ordered b& the President to pac+ up and re-ove his personalbelon(in(s fro- the office. Private respondent #as said to have been e-barrassed before his i--ediatefa-il& and other acBuaintance due to his inabilit& to eAplain the reasons behind the ter-ination of hisservices.

In this Petition for Certiorari , it is sub-itted that private respondentKs dis-issal #as 9ustified and notille(al. Petitioner -aintains that it had been incurrin( business losses be(innin( "=2$ and that it #asco-pelled to reduce the si:e of its personnel force. Petitioner also contends that redundanc& as a causefor ter-ination does not necessaril& -ean duplication of #or+ but a @situation #here the services of ane-plo&ee are in eAcess of #hat is de-anded b& the needs of an underta+in( . . .@

;avin( revie#ed the record of this case, the !ourt has satisfied itself that indeed petitioner had serious

financial difficulties before, durin( and after the ter-ination of the services of private respondent. For onethin(, the audited financial state-ents of the petitioner for its fiscal &ear endin( on 0" 1ul& "=2% preparedb& a fir- of independent auditors, sho#ed a net loss in the a-ount of P$,$0",0". and a total deficit orcapital i-pair-ent at the end of &ear of P6,//6,$=0.. 2 In the precedin( fiscal &ear )"=204"=2$*, #hilethe co-pan& sho#ed a net after taA inco-e of P2$0,%6., it actuall& suffered a deficit or capitali-pair-ent of P,0$%,"/.. Most i-portantl&, petitioner >iltshire finall& closed its doors and ter-inatedall operations in the Philippines on 1anuar& "=2/, barel& t#o )* &ears after the ter-ination of privaterespondentKs e-plo&-ent. >e consider that finall& shuttin( do#n business operations constitutes stron(confir-ator& evidence of petitionerKs previous financial distress. The !ourt finds it ver& difficult to supposethat petitioner >iltshire #ould ta+e the final and irrevocable step of closin( do#n its operations in thePhilippines si-pl& for the sole purpose of easin( out a particular officer or e-plo&ee, such as the privaterespondent.

Turnin( to the le(alit& of the ter-ination of private respondentKs e-plo&-ent, #e find -erit in petitionerKsbasic ar(u-ent. >e are unable to sustain public respondent N7R!Ks holdin( that private respondentKsdis-issal #as not 9ustified b& redundanc& and hence ille(al. In the first place, #e note that #hile the letterinfor-in( private respondent of the ter-ination of his services used the #ord @redundant@, that letter alsoreferred to the co-pan& havin( @incurEred financial losses #hich Ein fact has co-pelled Eit to resort toretrench-ent to prevent further losses@. 3 Thus, #hat the letter #as in effect sa&in( #as that because offinancial losses, retrench-ent #as necessar&, #hich retrench-ent in turn resulted in the redundanc& ofprivate respondentKs position.



In the second place, #e do not believe that redundanc& in an e-plo&erKs personnel force necessaril& oreven ordinaril& refers to duplication of #or+. That no other person #as holdin( the sa-e position thatprivate respondent held prior to the ter-ination of his services, does not sho# that his position had notbeco-e redundant. Indeed, in an& #ell4or(ani:ed business enterprise, it #ould be surprisin( to findduplication of #or+ and t#o )* or -ore people doin( the #or+ of one person. >e believe thatredundanc&, for purposes of our 7abor !ode, eAists #here the services of an e-plo&ee are in eAcess of#hat is reasonabl& de-anded b& the actual reBuire-ents of the enterprise. Succinctl& put, a position isredundant #here it is superfluous, and superfluit& of a position or positions -a& be the outco-e of anu-ber of factors, such as overhirin( of #or+ers, decreased volu-e of business, or droppin( of aparticular product line or service activit& previousl& -anufactured or underta+en b& the enterprise. ! Thee-plo&er has no le(al obli(ation to +eep in its pa&roll -ore e-plo&ees than are necessaril& for theoperation of its business.

In the third place, in the case at bar, petitioner >iltshire, in vie# of the contraction of its volu-e of salesand in order to cut do#n its operatin( eApenses, effected so-e chan(es in its or(ani:ation b& abolishin(so-e positions and thereb& effectin( a reduction of its personnel. Thus, the position of Sales Mana(er#as abolished and the duties previousl& dischar(ed b& the Sales Mana(er si-pl& added to the duties ofthe 'eneral Mana(er, to #ho- the Sales Mana(er used to report.

It is of no le(al -o-ent that the financial troubles of the co-pan& #ere not of private respondentKs-a+in(. Private respondent cannot insist on the retention of his position upon the (round that he had notcontributed to the financial proble-s of >iltshire. The characteri:ation of private respondentKs services asno lon(er necessar& or sustainable, and therefore properl& ter-inable, #as an eAercise of business

9ud(-ent on the part of petitioner co-pan&. The #isdo- or soundness of such characteri:ation ordecision #as not sub9ect to discretionar& revie# on the part of the 7abor 3rbiter nor of the N7R! so lon(,of course, as violation of la# or -erel& arbitrar& and -alicious action is not sho#n. It should also be notedthat the position held b& private respondent, Sales Mana(er, #as clearl& -ana(erial in character.In !.M . Consun%i, nc . v . #ational 'abor Relations Co((ission, *the !ourt held8

3n e-plo&er has a -uch #ider discretion in ter-inatin( the e-plo&-ent relationship of-ana(erial personnel as co-pared to ran+ and file e-plo&ees. ;o#ever, suchprero(ative of -ana(e-ent to dis-iss or la& off an e-plo&ee -ust be -ade #ithout

abuse of discretion, for #hat is at sta+e is not onl& the private respondentKs position butalso his -eans of livelihood . . . . +

The deter-ination of the continuin( necessit& of a particular officer or position in a businesscorporation is -ana(e-entKs prero(ative, and the courts #ill not interfere #ith the eAercise ofsuch so lon( as no abuse of discretion or -erel& arbitrar& or -alicious action on the part of-ana(e-ent is sho#n. 7

On the issue of -oral da-a(es, petitioner assails the findin( of the N7R! that the dis-issal #as done inbad faith. Petitioner ar(ues that it had co-plied #ith the one4-onth notice reBuired b& la#5 that there #asno need for private respondent to be heard in his o#n defense considerin( that the ter-ination of hisservices #as for a statutor& or authori:ed cause5 and that #hatever hu-iliation -i(ht have been sufferedb& private respondent arose fro- a la#ful cause and hence could not be the basis of an a#ard of -oral

da-a(es.

Ter-ination of an e-plo&eeKs services because of retrench-ent to prevent further losses or redundanc&,is (overned b& 3rticle 20 of the 7abor !ode #hich provides as follo#s8

3rt. 20. Closure of establish(ent and reduction of personnel . HH The e-plo&er -a& alsoter-inate the e-plo&-ent of an& e-plo&ee due to the installation of labor savin(devices, redundanc&, retrench-ent to prevent losses or the closin( or cessation ofoperation of the establish-ent or underta+in( unless the closin( is for the purpose of



circu-ventin( the provisions of this Title, b& servin( a #ritten notice on the #or+ers andthe Ministr& of 7abor and -plo&-ent at least one )"* -onth before the intended datethereof. In case of ter-ination due to the installation of labor savin( devices orredundanc&, the #or+er affected thereb& shall be entitled to a separation pa& eBuivalentto at least his one )"* -onth pa& or to at least one )"* -onth pa& for ever& &ear ofservice, #hichever is hi(her. In case of retrench-ent to prevent losses and in cases ofclosures or cessation of operations of establish-ent or underta+in( not due to seriousbusiness losses or financial reverses, the separation pa& shall be eBuivalent to one )"*-onth pa& or at least one4half )"* -onth pa& for ever& of service, #hichever is hi(her. 3fraction of at least siA )6* -onths shall be considered one )"* #hole &ear.

Ter-ination of services for an& of the above described causes should be distin(uished fro-ter-ination of e-plo&-ent b& reason of so-e bla-e#orth& act or o-ission on the part of thee-plo&ee, in #hich case the applicable provision is 3rticle 2 of the 7abor !ode #hich providesas follo#s8

3rt. 2. $er(ination b) e(plo)er . ** 3n e-plo&er -a& ter-inate an e-plo&-ent for an&of the follo#in( causes8

)a* Serious -isconduct or #illful disobedience b& the e-plo&ee of thela#ful orders of his e-plo&er or representative in connection #ith his#or+5

)b* 'ross and habitual ne(lect b& the e-plo&ee of his duties5

)c* Fraud or #illful breach b& the e-plo&ee of the trust reposed in hi- b&his e-plo&er or dul& authori:ed representative5

)d* !o--ission of a cri-e or offense b& the e-plo&ee a(ainst theperson of his e-plo&er or an& i--ediate -e-ber of his fa-il& or his dul&authori:ed representative5 and

)e* Other causes analo(ous to the fore(oin(.

Sections and % of Rule LIV entitled @Ter-ination of -plo&-ent8@ of the @Rules to I-ple-ent the 7abor!ode@ read as follo#s8

Sec. . #otice of dis(issal . HH 3n& e-plo&er #ho see+s to dis-iss a #or+er shall furnishhi- a #ritten notice statin( the particular acts or o-ission constitutin( the (rounds for hisdis-issal. In cases of abandon-ent of #or+, the notice shall be served at the #or+erKslast +no#n address.

AAA AAA AAA

Sec. %. Answer and hearing . HH The #or+er -a& ans#er the allegations stated againsthi( in the notice of dis(issal #ithin a reasonable period fro- receipt of such notice. Thee-plo&er shall afford the #or+er a-ple opportunit& to be heard and to defend hi-self#ith the assistance of his representative if he so desires. )e-phasis supplied*

>e note that Section of Rule LIV Buoted above reBuires the notice to specif& @the particularacts or o-issions constitutin( the (round for his dis-issal@, a reBuire-ent #hich is obviousl&applicable #here the (round for dis-issal is the co--ission of so-e act or o-ission fallin( #ithin

3rticle 2 of the 7abor !ode. 3(ain, Section % (ives the e-plo&ee the ri(ht to ans#er and to



defend hi-self a(ainst @the alle(ations stated a(ainst hi- in the notice of dis-issal@. It is suchalle(ations b& the e-plo&er and an& counter4alle(ations that the e-plo&ee -a& #ish to -a+e thatneed to be heard before dis-issal is effected. Thus, Section % -a& be seen to envisa(e char(esa(ainst an e-plo&ee constitutin( one or -ore of the 9ust causes for dis-issal listed in 3rticle 2of the 7abor !ode. >here, as in the instant case, the (round for dis-issal or ter-ination ofservices does not relate to a bla-e#orth& act or o-ission on the part of the e-plo&ee, thereappears to us no need for an investi(ation and hearin( to be conducted b& the e-plo&er #hodoes not, to be(in #ith, alle(e an& -alfeasance or non4feasance on the part of the e-plo&ee. Insuch case, there are no alle(ations #hich the e-plo&ee should refute and defend hi-self fro-.Thus, to reBuire petitioner >iltshire to hold a hearin(, at #hich private respondent #ould havehad the ri(ht to be present, on the business and financial circu-stances co-pellin( retrench-entand resultin( in redundanc&, #ould be to i-pose upon the e-plo&er an unnecessar& and inutilehearin( as a condition for le(alit& of ter-ination.

This is not to sa& that the e-plo&ee -a& not contest the realit& or (ood faith character of theretrench-ent or redundanc& asserted as (rounds for ter-ination of services. The appropriate foru- forsuch controversion #ould, ho#ever, be the Depart-ent of 7abor and -plo&-ent and not aninvesti(ation or hearin( to be held b& the e-plo&er itself. It is precisel& for this reason that an e-plo&ersee+in( to ter-inate services of an e-plo&ee or e-plo&ees because of @closure of establish-ent andreduction of personnel@, is le(all& reBuired to (ive a #ritten notice not onl& to the e-plo&ee but also to theDepart-ent of 7abor and -plo&-ent at least one -onth before effectivit& date of the ter-ination. In theinstant case, private respondent did controvert before the appropriate labor authorities the (rounds forter-ination of services set out in petitionerKs letter to hi- dated "/ 1une "=2%.

>e hold, therefore, that the N7R!Ks findin( that private respondent had not been accorded due process,is bereft of factual and le(al bases. The a#ard of -oral da-a(es that rests on such (round -ustaccordin(l& fall.

>hile private respondent -a& #ell have suffered personal e-barrass-ent b& reason of ter-ination of hisservices, such fact alone cannot 9ustif& the a#ard of -oral da-a(es. Moral da-a(es are si-pl& a speciesof da-a(es a#arded to co-pensate one for in9uries brou(ht about b& a #ron(ful act. 8 3s discussedabove, the ter-ination of private respondentKs services #as not a #ron(ful act. There is in this case no

clear and convincin( evidence of record sho#in( that the ter-ination of private respondentKs services,#hile due to an authori:ed or statutor& cause, had been carried out in an arbitrar&, capricious and-alicious -anner, #ith evident personal ill4#ill. -barrass-ent, even hu-iliation, that is not proAi-atel&caused b& a #ron(ful act does not constitute a basis for an a#ard of -oral da-a(es.

Private respondent is, of course, entitled to separation pa& and other benefits under 3ct 20 of the 7abor!ode and petitionerKs letter dated "/ 1une "=2%.

3!!ORDIN'7, the !ourt Resolved to 'R3NT due course to the Petition for Certiorari . The Resolutionsof the National 7abor Relations !o--ission dated = Februar& "=22 and / March "=22 are hereb& ST

3SID and NC77IFID. The Te-porar& Restrainin( Order issued b& this !ourt on " March "=22 ishereb& -ade PRM3NNT. No pronounce-ent as to costs.

SO ORDRD.



FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 1*++*8. Mar- 10, 200!/

(ONI#ACIO ASU#RIN, JR., petitioner , vs. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION an) $ COURT O#

APPEALS, respondents.

E C I S I O N

NARESSANTIAGO, J .

!oca !ola Plant, then a depart-ent of respondent San Mi(uel <eer !orporation )SM!*, hired

petitioner as a utilit&-iscellaneous #or+er in Februar& "=/. On Nove-ber ", "=/0, he beca-e a

re(ular e-plo&ee paid on dail& basis as a For+lift Operator. On Nove-ber "6, "=2", he beca-e a

-onthl& paid e-plo&ee pro-oted as Stoc+ !ler+.

So-eti-e in "=2$, the sales office and operations at the Su-4a(, <acolod !it& Sales Office #ere

reor(ani:ed. Several positions #ere abolished includin( petitioner?s position as Stoc+ !ler+. 3fter revie#in( petitioner?s Bualifications, he #as desi(nated #arehouse chec+er at the Su-4a( Sales Office.

On 3pril ", "==6, respondent SM! i-ple-ented a ne# -ar+etin( s&ste- +no#n as the pre4sellin(

sche-e at the Su-4a( <eer Sales Office. 3s a conseBuence, all positions of route sales and #arehouse

personnel #ere declared redundant. Respondent notified the DO7 Director of Re(ion VI that

personnel of the Sales Depart-ent of the Ne(ros Operations !enter E" #ould be retired effective March

0", "==%.

Respondent SM! thereafter #rote a letter E to petitioner infor-in( hi- that, o#in( to the

i-ple-entation of the pre4sellin( operations sche-e, all positions of route and #arehouse personnel #ill

be declared redundant and the Su-4a( Sales Office #ill be closed effective 3pril 0, "==6. Thus,fro- 3pril ", "==6 to Ma& "%, "==6, petitioner reported to respondent?s Personnel Depart-ent at the Sta.

Fe <re#er&, pursuant to a previous directive.

Thereafter, the e-plo&ees of Su-4a( sales force #ere infor-ed that the& can avail of respondent?s

earl& retire-ent pac+a(e pursuant to the retrench-ent pro(ra-, #hile those #ho #ill not avail of earl&

retire-ent #ould be redeplo&ed or absorbed at the <re#er& or other sales offices. Petitioner opted to

re-ain and -anifested to 3ctin( Personnel Mana(er Salvador 3badesco his #illin(ness to be assi(ned to

an& 9ob, considerin( that he had three children in colle(e.E0

Petitioner #as surprised #hen he #as infor-ed b& the 3ctin( Personnel Mana(er that his na-e #as

included in the list of e-plo&ees #ho availed of the earl& retire-ent pac+a(e. Petitioner?s reBuest that he

be (iven an assi(n-ent in the co-pan& #as i(nored b& the 3ctin( Personnel Mana(er.

Petitioner thus filed a co-plaint for ille(al dis-issal #ith the N7R!, doc+eted as R3< !ase No. 64

64"004=6. On Dece-ber /, "==6, the 7abor 3rbiter dis-issed the co-plaint for lac+ of

-erit. Petitioner appealed to the National 7abor Relations !o--ission )N7R!* #hich set aside the 7abor

3rbiter?s decision and ordered respondent SM! to reinstate petitioner to his for-er or eBuivalent position

#ith full bac+#a(es.E$

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/156658.htm#_ftn1












Respondent filed a petition #ith the !ourt of 3ppeals #hich reversed the decision of the N7R! and

reinstated the 9ud(-ent of the 7abor 3rbiter dis-issin( the co-plaint for ille(al dis-issal. Petitioner?s

-otion for reconsiderationE% #as denied in a Resolution dated Dece-ber "", .E6

;ence, this petition for revie# assi(nin( the follo#in( errors8

'. THE HONORA?E PU?IC RESPON6ENT COURT O; APPEA?S, ITH 6UE RESPECT,

COMMITTE6 GRAE AUSE O; 6ISCRETION IN HO?6ING THAT PETITIONER AS

LNOT SING?E6-OUT ;OR TERMINATION, AS MANY OTHERS ERE A?SO

A6ERSE?Y A;;ECTE6.

). THE HONORA?E PU?IC RESPON6ENT COURT O; APPEA?S COMMITTE6 GROSS

MISAPPREHENSION O; ;ACT HEN IT A;;IRME6 THE ;IN6ING O; THE ?AOR

ARITER THAT THE POSITION O; PETITIONER ECAME RE6UN6ANT AT THE SUM-

AG SA?ES O;;ICES.

9. THE HONORA?E PU?IC RESPON6ENT COURT O; APPEA?S COMMITTE6 GRAE

AUSE O; 6ISCRETION HEN IT HE?6 THAT THE 6ISMISSA? O; PETITIONER ASA?I6.

0. THE HONORA?E PU?IC RESPON6ENT COURT O; APPEA?S ERRE6 IN 6ISMISSING

THE ENTIRE RE?IE;S PRAYE6 ;OR Y THE PETITIONER.

The pri-ordial issue to be resolved is #hether or not the dis-issal of petitioner is based on a 9ust

and authori:ed cause.

Factual findin(s of ad-inistrative bodies, bein( considered eAperts in their fields, are bindin( on this

!ourt. ;o#ever, this is a (eneral rule #hich holds true onl& #hen established eAceptions do not obtain.

One of these eAceptive circu-stances is #hen the findin(s of the 7abor 3rbiter and the N7R! areconflictin(. !onsiderin( that the rulin( of the 7abor 3rbiter #as reversed b& the N7R! #hose 9ud(-ent

#as in turn overturned b& the appellate court, it behooves us in the eAercise of our eBuit& 9urisdiction to

deter-ine #hich findin(s are -ore confor-able to the evidentiar& facts.E/

In the case at bar, petitioner #as dis-issed on the (round of redundanc&, one of the authori:ed

causes for dis-issal.E2 In !ole +hilippines, nc. v. #'RC ,E= citin( the leadin( case of iltshire -ile Co.,

nc. v. #'RC ,E"#e eAplained the nature of redundanc& as an authori:ed cause for dis-issal thus8

. . . reunan%1 in an e"!#o1erDs !ersonne# or%e ne%essari#1 or even orinari#1 reers to u!#i%ation o /or5. T3at

no ot3er !erson /as 3o#in$ t3e sa"e !osition t3at !rivate res!onent 3e# !rior to t3e ter"ination o 3is servi%es,

oes not s3o/ t3at 3is !osition 3a not &e%o"e reunant. Inee, in an1 /e##-or$ani@e &usiness enter!rise, it

/ou# &e sur!risin$ to in u!#i%ation o /or5 an t/o 2)4 or "ore !eo!#e oin$ t3e /or5 o one !erson. e

&e#ieve t3at reunan%1, or !ur!oses o t3e ?a&or Coe, eists /3ere t3e servi%es o an e"!#o1ee are in e%ess o

/3at is reasona&#1 e"ane &1 t3e a%tua# reFuire"ents o t3e enter!rise. Su%%in%t#1 !ut, a !osition is reunant

/3ere it is su!er#uous, an su!er#uit1 o a !osition or !ositions "a1 &e t3e out%o"e o a nu"&er o a%tors, su%3 as

over3irin$ o /or5ers, e%rease vo#u"e o &usiness, or ro!!in$ o a !arti%u#ar !rou%t #ine or servi%e a%tivit1

!revious#1 "anua%ture or unerta5en &1 t3e enter!rise.
















The deter-ination that e-plo&ee?s services are no lon(er necessar& or sustainable and, therefore,

properl& ter-inable is an eAercise of business 9ud(-ent of the e-plo&er. The #isdo- or soundness of

this 9ud(-ent is not sub9ect to discretionar& revie# of the 7abor 3rbiter and the N7R!, provided there is

no violation of la# and no sho#in( that it #as pro-pted b& an arbitrar& or -alicious act. E"" In other #ords,

it is not enou(h for a co-pan& to -erel& declare that it has beco-e over-anned. It -ust produce

adeBuate proof that such is the actual situation to 9ustif& the dis-issal of the affected e-plo&ees for

redundanc&.E"

Persuasive as the eAplanation proffered b& respondent -a& be to 9ustif& the dis-issal of petitioner, a

nu-ber of disturbin( circu-stances, ho#ever, leave us unconvinced.

-irst , of the 0 SM! e-plo&ees assi(ned at the Su-4a( Sales Office>arehouse, = accepted the

offer of SM! to avail of the earl& retire-ent #hose separation benefits #as co-puted at %G of their

re(ular pa&. The rest, includin( petitioner, did not accept the offer. Out of the re-ainin( fourteen

"$, onl) petitioner clearl& -anifested, throu(h several letters, E"0 his desire to be redeplo&ed to the Sta. Fe

<re#er& or an& sales office H and for an) position not necessaril& li-ited to that of a #arehouse

chec+er. In short, he #as even #illin( to accept a de-otion 9ust to continue his e-plo&-ent. Mean#hile,

other e-plo&ees #ho did not even write a letter to MC #ere redeplo&ed to the Sta. Fe <re#er& or absorbed b& other officesoutlets outside <acolod !it&.E"$

econd , petitioner #as in the pa&roll of the Sta. Fe <re#er& and assi(ned to the Materials Section,

7o(istics Depart-ent, althou(h he #as actuall& posted at the Su-4a( >arehouse.E"% Thus, even

assu-in( that his position in the Su-4a( >arehouse beca-e redundant, he should have been returned

to the Sta. Fe <re#er& #here he #as actuall& assi(ned and #here there #ere vacant positions to

acco--odate hi-.

$hird , it appears that despite respondent?s alle(ation that it ceased and closed do#n its #arehousin(

operations at the Su-4a( Sales Office, actuall& it is still used for #arehousin( activities and as a transit

point #here bu&ers and dealers (et their stoc+s. E"6 Indeed, the Su-4a( Office is strate(icall& situated on

the southern part of <acolod !it& -a+in( it convenient for dealers fro- the southern to#ns of Ne(ros

Occidental to (et their stoc+s and deposit their e-pt& bottles in the said #arehouse, thereb&

decon(estin( the business activities at the Sta. Fe <re#er&.

-ourth, in selectin( e-plo&ees to be dis-issed, a fair and reasonable criteria -ust be used, such as

but not li-ited to )a* less preferred status, e.g. te-porar& e-plo&ee5 )b* efficienc&5 and )c* seniorit&.E"/ In

the case at bar, no criterion whatsoever was adopted b) respondent in dis-issin(

petitioner. Further-ore, as correctl& observed b& the N7R!, respondent has not sho#n ho# the

cessation of operations of the Su-4a( Sales Office contributed to the #a&s and -eans of i-provin(

effectiveness of the or(ani:ation #ith the end in vie# of efficienc& and cuttin( distribution overhead and

other related costs. Respondent, thus, clearl& resorted to sweeping generalization/s0 in dis-issin(

co-plainant.E"2

Indeed, petitioner?s predica-ent -a& have so-ethin( to do #ith an incident #here heincurred the ire of an i--ediate superior in the Sales 7o(istics Cnit for eAposin( certain irre(ularities

co--itted b& the latter .E"=

In the earlier case of an Miguel Corporation v. #'RC ,E respondent?s reasons for ter-inatin( the

services of its e-plo&ees in the ver& sa(e Su-4a( Sales Office #as re9ected, to #it8














http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/107693.HTM
















Even i !rivate res!onents /ere $iven t3e o!tion to retire, &e retren%3e or is"isse, t3e1 /ere "ae to

unerstan t3at t3e1 3a no %3oi%e &ut to #eave t3e %o"!an1. More &#unt#1 state, t3e1 /ere or%e to s/a##o/ t3e

&itter !i## o is"issa# &ut aore a %3an%e to s/eeten t3eir se!aration ro" e"!#o1"ent. T3e1 eit3er 3a to

vo#untari#1 retire, &e retren%3e /it3 &eneits or &e is"isse /it3out re%eivin$ an1 &eneit at a##.

3at /as t3e true nature o !etitionerDs oer to !rivate res!onents It /as in rea#it1 a Ho&sonDs %3oi%e.E" A## t3at

t3e !rivate res!onents /ere oere /as a %3oi%e on t3e means or method of terminatin& their services &ut never as

to t3e status o t3eir e"!#o1"ent. In s3ort, the' (ere never asked if the' (anted to (ork for petitioner .

In the case at bar, petitioner is si-ilarl& situated. It bears stressin( that #hether it be b& redundanc&

or retrench-ent or an& of the other authori:ed causes, no e-plo&ee -a& be dis-issed #ithout

observance of the funda-entals of good faith.

It is not difficult for e-plo&ers to abolish positions in the (uise of a cost4cuttin( -easure and #e

should not be easil& s#a&ed b& such sche-es #hich all too often reduce to near nothin( #hat is left of

the rubble of ri(hts of our eAploited #or+ers. E 'iven the nature of petitioner?s 9ob as a >arehouse

!hec+er, it is inconceivable that respondent could not acco--odate his services considerin( that the

#arehousin( operations at Su-4a( Sales Office has not shut do#n.

3ll told, to sustain the position ta+en b& the appellate court #ould be to dilute the #or+in(-an?s -ost

i-portant ri(ht8 his constitutional ri(ht to securit& of tenure. >hile respondent -a& have offered a

(enerous co-pensation pac+a(e to those #hose services #ere ter-inated upon the i-ple-entation of

the pre4sellin( sche-e, #e find such an offer, in the face of the prevailin( facts, anathe-a to the

underl&in( principles #hich (ive life to our labor statutes because it #ould be tanta-ount to li+enin( an

e-plo&er4e-plo&ee relationship to a sales-an and a purchaser of a co--odit&. It is an archaic

abo-ination. To Buote #hat has been aptl& stated b& for-er 'overnor 'eneral 7eonard >ood in his

inau(ural -essa(e before the 6th Philippine 7e(islature on October /, "= labor is neither a chattel nor

a co--odit&, but hu-an and -ust be dealt #ith fro- the standpoint of hu-an interest. E0

3s has been said8 >e do not treat our #or+ers as -erchandise and their ri(ht to securit& of tenure

cannot be valued in precise peso4and4centavo ter-s. It is a ri(ht #hich cannot be allo#ed to be devalued

b& the purchasin( po#er of e-plo&ers #ho are onl& too #illin( to ban+roll the separation pa& of their

ille(all& dis-issed e-plo&ees to (et rid of the-.E$ This ri(ht #ill never be respected b& the e-plo&er if

#e -erel& honor it #ith a price ta(. The polic& of dis-iss no# and pa& later favors -one&ed e-plo&ers

and is a -oc+er& of the ri(ht of e-plo&ees to social 9ustice. E%

&'ERE#ORE, in vie# of all the fore(oin(, the petition is 'R3NTD. The Decision of the !ourt of

3ppeals in !34'.R. SP No. %0%" dated 3pril ", , and the Resolution dated Dece-ber "",

den&in( petitioner?s Motion for Reconsideration, are ST 3SID. The decision of the National 7abor

Relations Division dated Februar& , "==2 is RINST3TD. 3ccordin(l&, petitioner?s dis-issal is

declared ille(al, and respondent is ordered to reinstate hi- to his for-er or eBuivalent position, #ith fullbac+#a(es co-puted fro- 3pril ", "==6 up to his actual reinstate-ent. Respondent is li+e#ise ordered

to pa& petitioner the su- eBuivalent to ten percent )"G* of his total -onetar& a#ard as attorne&?s fees.

SO ORERE.















Manila

T;IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 117!*" O-o%$r 17, 1""7

MOISES (. PANLILIO, petitioner,vs.NATIONAL LA(OR RELATIONS COMMISSION 4NLRC #IRST IVISION5 AN #INSTA##PLACEMENT SERVICES, INC. AN OMAN S'ERATON 'OTEL, INC., respondents.

ROMERO, J.:



;erein petitioner, unfa:ed b& countless tales of overseas #or+ers #ho e-bar+ adventurousl& on trips to@Pro-ised 7ands@ onl& to find the-selves shortchan(ed, or #orse 9obless, dares to tre+ the sa-e path.;is (lorious drea- lasted but siA -onths #hen he #as pere-ptoril& dis-issed on the (round that hisposition had beco-e redundant.

The facts as borne out b& the records reveal that8

Petitioner Moises <. Panlilio #as recruited b& private respondent Findstaff Place-ent Services )FPS* fore-plo&-ent in the Sheraton ;otel in O-an as Recreational Mana(er in October "==". The contract #asfor a period of t#o &ears #ith a -onthl& co-pensation of one thousand one hundred dollars )",".*.PetitionerKs (ood fortune, ho#ever, did not last lon(, for in March "== his services #ere ter-inated onthe (round that his position had beco-e redundant.

;e then filed a co-plaint for ille(al dis-issal before the 3d9udication Office of the Philippine Overseas-plo&-ent 3d-inistration )PO3* #hich #as doc+eted as PO3 !ase No. )7* =404%%". 3fter duetrial, the PO3 rendered a decision dated 3pril ", "==0 rulin( that petitioner #as ille(all& dis-issed onthe pre-ise that the alle(ed redundanc& of his position #as not adeBuatel& proven. 1

FPS filed an appeal before the National 7abor Relations !o--ission. In its decision dated 3pril "=,

"==$, 2despite ne#l& sub-itted affidavits fro- the officers of the Director of Personnel and Trainin(Division of Sheraton ;otel b& FPS substantiatin( the redundanc& of petitionerKs position, the N7R!affir-ed the PO3Ks decision and dis-issed the appeal for lac+ of -erit.

Cndaunted b& another setbac+, FFS filed a -otion for reconsideration. To petitionerKs surprise anddis-a&, the N7R! reversed itself and rendered a ne# decision 3 upholdin( the validit& of his dis-issal on(round of redundanc&. ;ence, this petition.

Petitioner clai-s that the N7R! (ravel& abused its discretion #hen it reversed its ori(inal rulin( on thebasis of the affidavits #hich it had earlier ruled out as self4servin( and of no evidentiar& value.

3fter a careful stud& of the relevant facts, #e are constrained to reverse the findin(s of the N7R!.

In the case at bar, FPS failed to present substantial evidence to 9ustif& the dis-issal of petitioner on the(round of redundanc&. The affidavits and docu-ents it sub-itted are entitled to little #ei(ht, for it does notprove the superfluit& of petitionerKs position. ! In fact, these docu-ents do not even present the necessar&factors #hich #ould confir- that a position is indeed redundant, such as overhirin( of #or+ers, decreasedvolu-e of business or droppin( of a product line or service activit&. *

On this -atter, #e a(ree #ith the observation and conclusion of the PO3 #hich #e Buote, to #it8

Not a sin(le evidence #as sub-itted to bolster their contention. It is not enou(h forrespondent to alle(e that co-plainantKs position beca-e redundant and that there #asrestructurin( of the staff at the ;ealth !lub of the O-an Sheraton ;otel. Respondentsshould have presented evidence to support this contention, such as but not li-ited to the

ne# staffin( pattern, feasibilit& studiesproposal, on the viabilit& of the ne#l& createdpositions, 9ob description and the approval b& the -ana(e-ent of the restructurin(. +

This vie# #as bolstered b& the N7R! in its ori(inal decision #herein it held.

The affidavits 9ust recentl& sub-itted -erel& touched on the issue of discri-inationden&in( it ever eAisted or that co-plainant #as its victi-. 3part fro- bein( self4servin( ashavin( been issued b& present e-plo&ees of respondent O-an Sheraton ;otel to #ho-their lo&alt& are )sic * eApected to lie, #e si-pl& cannot (ive -uch #ei(ht to it in the li(ht



of our inabilit& and that of the co-plainant to confront the- #ith the docu-ents the&purportedl& si(ned under oath. More so, even (rantin( ar(uendo that no discri-inationtranspired still, the fact re-ains that the restructurin( and redundanc& that beca-e thebasis of co-plainantKs severance fro- e-plo&-ent re-ains an i-a(inar& prepositionunsupported b& concrete evidence. 7

In its resolution (rantin( FPSKs -otion for reconsideration, ho#ever, the N7R! -ade a suddenturnaround and, rel&in( on the sa-e evidence, ruled that redundanc& of petitionerKs position #asadeBuatel& proven, necessitatin( the reversal of its ori(inal decision. >e cannot acco--odate the ne#stance of the N7R!.

In overturnin( its earlier decision, the N7R! reasoned out that since it could have su--oned one of theaffiants to a-plif& his state-ent, it erred in rulin( that said affidavits #ere self4servin( and of little value.

This ar(u-ent fails to i-press us. Cndoubtedl&, said docu-ents still do not sufficientl& eAplain the reason#h& petitionerKs position had beco-e redundant, but onl& elucidated the fact that he #as not a victi- ofan& discri-ination in effectin( the ter-ination.

>e have held that it is i-portant for a co-pan& to have fair and reasonable criteria in i-ple-entin( its

redundanc& pro(ra-, such as but not li-ited to, )a* preferred status, )b* efficienc& and )c*seniorit&. 8Cnfortunatel& for FPS, such appraisal #as not done in the instant case.

Petitioner alle(es that the N7R! erred in considerin( these affidavits #hich #ere introduced for the firstti-e on appeal. >e rule that the N7R! acted correctl& #hen it ad-itted the affidavits sub-itted b& FPSon appeal, for it cannot be disputed that technical rules of evidence are not bindin( in labor cases. " 7abor officials should use ever& reasonable -eans to ascertain the facts in each case speedil& and ob9ectivel&,#ithout re(ard to technicalities of la# or procedure, all in the interest of due process. 10

In line #ith the !ourtKs liberal stance re(ardin( procedural deficiencies in labor cases, #e have held thateven if the evidence #as not sub-itted at the earliest possible opportunit&, the fact that it #as dul&introduced on appeal to the N7R! is enou(h basis for its eventual ad-ission. 11

The ad-issibilit& of the affidavits not#ithstandin(, #e cannot affir- the decision of the N7R! especiall&#hen its findin(s of fact on #hich the conclusion #as based are not supported b& substantialevidence, 12 that is, the a-ount of relevant evidence #hich a reasonable -ind -i(ht accept as adeBuateto 9ustif& a conclusion. 13

>;RFOR, the instant petition is 'R3NTD. The challen(ed resolution is ST 3SID and thedecision of the Philippine Overseas -plo&-ent 3(enc& is hereb& RINST3TD. !osts a(ainst privaterespondent.

SO ORDRD.



SLLA(US

". 73<OR 3ND SO!I37 7'IS73TION5 73<OR !OD5 TRMIN3TION OF MP7OMNT5 !RITRI3

IN S7!TIN' MP7OS TO < DISMISSD.4 Petitioner -isses the point. Its violation of due

process consists in its failure, as found b& respondent Secretar& of 7abor, to aprise

respondent Cnion of an& fair and reasonable criteria for i-ple-entation of its redundanc&

pro(ra-. In 3sia#orld #e laid do#n the principle that in selectin( the e-plo&ees to be dis-issed a

fair and reasonable criteria -ust be used, such as but not li-ited to8 )a* less preferred status )e.(.,

te-porar& e-plo&ee*, )b* efficienc& and )c* seniorit&. 3lthou(h the case of 3sia#orld dealt #ith

retrench-ent, still the principle is applicable to the present case because in effectin( the dis-issals

petitioner had to select fro- a-on( its e-plo&ees.

. ID.5 ID.5 ID.5 RDCND3N! PRO'R3M5 T; !OMP3N MCST 3PPR3IS T; CNION OF 3N

F3IR 3ND R3SON3<7 !RITRI3 FOR ITS IMP7MNT3TION.4 3s has been -ade clear, even

this Office reco(ni:ed that an authori:ed cause for dis-issal did eAist5 #hat it could not countenance

is the -eans e-plo&ed b& the !o-pan& in -a+in( the cause effective. <ut no -atter #hat +ind of

9ustification the !o-pan& presents no#, this has beco-e -oot, acade-ic and irrelevant. The sa-e

should have been co--unicated to the affected e-plo&ees prior to or si-ultaneousl& #ith the

i-ple-entation of the redundanc&, or at the ver& least, before the assailed order #as rendered. In



an& event, the eAplanantion bein( advanced b& the !o-pan& no# purportedl& based on areas of

assi(n-ent 4 loses si(nificance fro- the -ore co-pellin( vie#point of efficienc& and seniorit&. For

instance, durin( the period covered b& the !o-pan&Ks o#n ti-e and -otion anal&sis, Ro(elio Varona

delivered =6 -essa(es but #as dis-issed5 Resurrecion <ordeos delivered onl& an avera(e of /% but

#as retained. In ter-s of seniorit&, the !o-pan& itself states that @Ms. <ordeos holds the sa-e

positionarea as Ro(elio Varona, ho#ever, she #as retained because she is -ore senior than the

latter.@ The !o-pan& should loo+ at its o#n evidence a(ain. <ordeos had onl& "6 &ears of

service. Varona had "=, Neves "2, and Valle, <asi( and Santos "/, &et all five #ere dis-issed. One

should also consider that the redundanc& #as i-ple-ented at the hei(ht of bar(ainin(

ne(otiations. The bar(ainin( process could have been the best opportunit& for the !o-pan& to

apprise the Cnion of the necessit& for redundanc&. For un+no#n reasons, the !o-pan& did not ta+e

advanta(e of it. Intended or not, the redundanc& reinforced the conditions for a deadloc+, (ivin( the

Cnion -e-bers the i-pression that it #as bein( used b& the !o-pan& to obtain a bar(ainin(

levera(e.

0. ID.5 ID.5 ID.5 >;R PRO!DCR37 DC PRO!SS >3S NOT 3FFORDD T; DISMISSD

MP7OS T; MP7OR MCST INDMNIF T; FORMR5 T; M3SCR OF T;

3>3RD DPNDS ON T; F3!TS OF 3!; !3S 3ND T; 'R3VIT OF T; OMISSION!OMMITTD < T; MP7OR.4 Petitioner ar(ues neAt that (rantin( procedural due process

#as not afforded the dis-issed e-lo&ees, still, the a#ard of t#o )* -onths salar& for each of the-

is not in accord #ith eAistin( 9urisprudence. The >enphil doctrine teaches, as in other cases, that

#here the dis-issal of an e-plo&ee is for a 9ust cause but #ithout due process, the e-plo&er -ust

inde-nif& the dis-issed e-plo&ee. Petitioner -ust have failed to read the full teAt to >enphil or

si-pl& chose to i(nore the sentence i--ediatel& succeedin( the P",. inde-nif& enunciated

therein. The case is eAplicit that the -easure of the a#ard depends on the facts of each case and

the (ravit& of the o-ission co--itted b& the e-plo&er. In fact, in the recent case of Reta vs. N7R!,

the !ourt sa# fit ti i-pose P",. as penalt& for the e-plo&erKs failure to co-pl& #ith the due

process reBuire-ent. The ratiocination of respondent Secretar& of 7abor should have out

petitionerKs ar(u-ent at rest 4 AAA >enphil, ho#ever, si-pl& provies the authorit& to i-pose the

inde-nit&5 it is not -eant to be definitive as to the a-ount of inde-nit& applicable in all cases, thisbein( dependent on the particular circu-stances of a case. Indeed, in the later case of Mariti-e

Seahorse vs. N7R!, '.R. No. 2$/", % Ma& "=2=, the Supre-e !Ourt applied the >enphil doctrine

but a#arded an inde-nit& of P%,.. !learl&, there is a reco(nition that the a-ount of inde-nit&

to be a#arded is sub9ect to the discretion of the a(enc& -a+in( the a#ard, considerin( all attendant

circu-stances.

$. ID.5 ID.5 RTIRMNT FROM T; SRVI!5 M3NIN' OF ON ;37F )"* MONT; S373R5

DFIND.4 The records fail to disclose that petitioner bothered to infor- the !ourt ho# it arrived at

".2 da&s as basis in the co-putation of the retire-ent pa&. 3n&#a&, it is clear in the la# that the

ter- @one4half )"* -onth salar&@ -eans .% da&s8 "% da&s plus .% da&s representin( one4t#elfth

)""* of the "0th -onth pa& plus % da&s of service incentive leave. In this re(ard, there is no reasonfor petitioner to co-plain that the retire-ent benefits (ranted b& respondent Secretar& of 7abor

eAceeded the reBuire-ents of the la#.

%. ID.5 ID.5 ID.5 3N MP7O M3 R!IV MOR RTIRMNT <NFITS PROVIDD FOR <

73> 3ND 3N !<3 OR OT;R 3'RMNTS.4 >ith respect to the additional siA )6* da&s for

co-pulsor& retire-ent and three )0* da&s for optional retire-ent, these -a& appear in eAcess of the

reBuire-ents of the la# and the de-and of respondent Cnion. et, it should be noted that the la#

-erel& establishes the -ini-u- retire-ent benefits as it reco(ni:ed that an e-plo&ee-a& receive



-ore under eAistin( la#s and an& !<3 or other a(ree-ents. <esides, respondent Secretar& of

7abor had to brea+ the bar(ainin( deadloc+. 3fter ta+in( into account all the circu-stances, public

respondent found it eApedient to stri+e a reasonable -iddle (round bet#een the partiesK respective

positions.

6. RMDI37 73>5 VIDN!5 F3!TC37 FINDIN'S OF T; S!RT3R OF 73<OR, 'NR377

RSP!TD ON 3PP37.4 Cnless these are co(ent reasons, and #e do not find an&, this !ourt

#ill not alter, -odif& or reverse the factual findin(s of the Secretar& of 7abor because, b& reason of

her official position, she is considerd to have acBuired eApertise as her 9urisdiction is confined to

specific -atters.

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 11717!. No6$%$r 13, 1""+/

CAPITOL &IRELESS, INC., petitioner, vs. 'ONORA(LE SECRETAR MA. NIEVES R. CON#ESORan) ILUSANG MANGGAGA&A NG CAP&IRE MCNA#LU, respondents.

E C I S I O N

(ELLOSILLO, J.

Petitioner !apitol >ireless, Inc., and respondent ilusan( Man((a(a#a n( !ap#ire M!4N3F7C

)Cnion* entered into a !ollective <ar(ainin( 3(ree-ent )!<3* on "% Nove-ber "== coverin( a period of

five )%* &ears. To#ards the end of the third &ear of their !<3 the parties rene(otiated the econo-ic

aspects of the a(ree-ent. On "2 1ul& "==0 #hen the ne(otiations #ere on4(oin( petitioner dis-issed on

the (round of redundanc& ei(ht )2* out of its eleven )""* couriers #ho #ere Cnion -e-bers.

3s a conseBuence, respondent Cnion filed a notice of stri+e #ith the National !onciliation and

Mediation <oard )N!M<* on the (round of bar(ainin( deadloc+ and unfair labor practice, specificall&, for

ille(al dis-issal and violations of the !<3. !onciliation proceedin(s #ere conducted b& the N!M< but

the sa-e &ielded ne(ative results. On 3u(ust "==0 respondent Cnion #ent on stri+e. On the sa-e

da&, respondent Secretar& assu-ed 9urisdiction over the controvers&.

In the conference held on "$ Septe-ber "==0 the parties a(reed to confine the scope of the dispute

to the follo#in( issues8 )a* unfair labor practice, consistin( of !<3 violations and acts ini-ical to the

#or+ers? ri(ht to self4or(ani:ation5 )b* redundanc&, affectin( the dis-issed e-plo&ees5 and )c* !<3

deadloc+, #hich includes all ite-s covered b& respondent Cnion?s proposals.

On Ma& "==$ respondents Secretar& of 7abor resolved the controvers& in this -anner8 )"* the

parties #ere ordered to -odif& the fourth and fifth &ears of their !<3 in accordance #ith the dispositions

she found 9ust and eBuitable E" the sa-e to be retroactive to " 1ul& "==0 and effective until 0 1une "==%

or until superseded b& a ne# a(ree-ent5 )* all other provisions of the eAistin( !<3 #ere dee-ed

retained but all ne# de-ands of respondent Cnion that #ere not passed upon b& her dee-ed denied5 )0*

the dis-issal of the ei(ht )2* e-plo&ees on the (round of redundanc& #as upheld, but due to defective

i-ple-entation b& petitioner the latter #as ordered to pa& each of the for-er an inde-nit& eBuivalent to

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117174.htm#_edn1




t#o )* -onths? salar& based on their ad9usted rate for the fourth &ear in addition to the separation

benefits due the- under the la# and the !<3, and if still unpaid, petitioner to pa& the sa-e i--ediatel&5

and )$* the char(e of unfair labor practice #as dis-issed for lac+ of -erit.E

On 2 1ul& "==$ the -otion for reconsideration of petitioner #as denied.E0

Petitioner i-putes (rave abuse of discretion on respondent Secretar& of 7abor for holdin( that it

failed to accord due process to the dis-issed e-plo&ees5 in not appl&in( to the letter the rulin( in >enphil

!orp. v. N7R!5E$ and, in a#ardin( retire-ent benefits be&ond those (ranted b& R.3. /6$". E%

Petitioner ar(ues that #hat it i-ple-ented #as not retrench-ent but redundanc& pro(ra-, as such,

respondent Secretar& of 7abor should not have relied upon 3sia#orld Publishin( ;ouse, Inc. v. Ople E6 in

holdin( that the dis-issed e-plo&ees #ere not accorded procedural due process. The additional

reBuire-ents enu-erated in 3sia#orld are inapplicable to the present case because that case involved

retrench-ent, and petitioner?s basis in decidin( those to be covered b& the redundanc& pro(ra- #as the

area serviced b& the couriers. 3ll areas outside the vicinit& of its head office, #hich #ere the areas of

deliver& of the dis-issed e-plo&ees, #ere declared redundant.

Petitioner -isses the point. Its violation of due process consists in its failure, as found b& respondent

Secretar& of 7abor, to apprise respondent Cnion of an& fair and reasonable criteria for i-ple-entation of

its redundanc& pro(ra-. In 3sia#orld #e laid do#n the principle that in selectin( e-plo&ees to be

dis-issed a fair and reasonable criteria -ust be used, such as but not li-ited to8 )a* less preferred status

)e.(., te-porar& e-plo&ee*, )b* efficienc& and )c* seniorit&. 3lthou(h the case of 3sia#orld dealt #ith

retrench-ent, still the principle is applicable to the present case because in effectin( the dis-issals

petitioner had to select fro- a-on( its e-plo&ees.

>e a(ree #ith respondent Secretar& of 7abor in her observation and conclusion that the

i-ple-entation b& petitioner of its redundanc& pro(ra- #as inconsistent #ith established principles of

procedural due process. She elaborated on this point in her resolution of the -otion for

reconsideration. Thus H

3et3er it is reunan%1 or retren%3"ent, no e"!#o1ee "a1 &e is"isse /it3out o&servan%e o t3e rui"ents o

$oo ait3. T3is is t3e !oint o our assai#e orer. I t3e Co"!an1 2/ere4 rea##1 %onvin%e o t3e reasons or

is"issa#, t3e #east it %ou# 3ave one to t3e e"!#o1ees ae%te /as to o&serve air !#a1 an trans!aren%1 in

i"!#e"entin$ t3e e%ision to is"iss. To stress, t3e reunan%1 /as i"!#e"ente /it3out t3e Co"!an1 so "u%3

a!!risin$ t3e Union o an1 air an reasona&#e %riteria or i"!#e"entation.

As a "atter o a%t, t3is oi%e %a##e t3e !arties to a %oneren%e on '0 Mar%3 '<<0, at /3i%3 t3e Co"!an1 /as $iven

an o!!ortunit1 to %#ari1 t3e %riteria it use in ee%tin$ reunan%1. Re!resente &1 Ms. Ma. ?oures Meno@a o

Mer%ao an Asso%iates, its %ounse# o re%or, t3e Co"!an1 su&"itte Fuit%#ai"s /3i%3 o not %ontain an1

a"ounts !ur!orte#1 ee%ute &1 ive o t3e ei$3t is"isse e"!#o1ees. More i"!ortant#1, t3e "inutes o t3e%oneren%e s3o/ t3at /it3in t/o a1s t3ereater, t3e Co"!an1 %o""itte to su&"it a !#eain$ to e!#ain t3e %riteria

it use in ee%tin$ t3e reunan%1 /3ere no su%3 su&"ission is "ae &1 '+ Mar%3 '<<0, t3e %ase s3a## &e ee"e

su&"itte or reso#ution. T3e Co"!an1 never %o"!#ie /it3 t3is %o""it"ent.

As 3as &een "ae %#ear, even t3is Oi%e re%o$ni@e t3at an aut3ori@e %ause or is"issa# i eist /3at it %ou#

not %ountenan%e is t3e "eans e"!#o1e &1 t3e Co"!an1 in "a5in$ t3e %ause ee%tive. ut no "atter /3at 5in o

ustii%ation t3e Co"!an1 !resents no/, t3is 3as &e%o"e "oot, a%ae"i% an irre#evant. T3e sa"e s3ou# 3ave















&een %o""uni%ate to t3e ae%te e"!#o1ees !rior to or si"u#taneous#1 /it3 t3e i"!#e"entation o t3e reunan%1,

or at t3e ver1 #east, &eoret3e assai#e orer /as renere.

In an1 event, t3e e!#anation &ein$ avan%e &1 t3e Co"!an1 no/ !ur!orte#1 &ase on areas o assi$n"ent #oses

si$nii%an%e ro" t3e "ore %o"!e##in$ vie/!oint o ei%ien%1 an seniorit1. ;or instan%e, urin$ t3e !erio

%overe &1 t3e Co"!an1Ds o/n ti"e an "otion ana#1sis, Ro$e#io arona e#ivere < "essa$es &ut /as is"isse

Ressure%ion oreos e#ivere on#1 an avera$e o +( &ut /as retaine. In ter"s o seniorit1, t3e Co"!an1 itse#

states t3e LMs. oreos 3o#s t3e sa"e !ositionBarea as Ro$e#io arona, 3o/ever, s3e /as retaine &e%ause s3e is

"ore senior t3an t3e #atter. T3e Co"!an1 s3ou# #oo5 at its o/n evien%e a$ain. oreos 3a on#1 ' 1ears o

servi%e. arona 3a '<, Neves '=, an a##e, asi$ an Santos '+, 1et a## ive /ere is"isse.

One s3ou# a#so %onsier t3at t3e reunan%1 /as i"!#e"ente at t3e 3ei$3t o &ar$ainin$ ne$otiations. T3e

&ar$ainin$ !ro%ess %ou# 3ave &een t3e &est o!!ortunit1 or t3e Co"!an1 to a!!rise t3e Union o t3e ne%essit1 or

reunan%1. ;or un5no/n reasons, t3e Co"!an1 i not ta5e an avanta$e o it. Intene or not, t3e reunan%1

reinor%e t3e %onitions or a ea#o%5, $ivin$ t3e Union "e"&ers t3e i"!ression t3at it /as &ein$ use &1 t3e

Co"!an1 to o&tain a &ar$ainin$ #evera$e.E/

Petitioner ar(ues neAt that (rantin( that procedural due process #as not afforded the dis-issede-plo&ees, still, the a#ard of t#o )* -onths salar& for each of the- is not in accord #ith eAistin(

9urisprudence. The >enphil doctrine teaches, as in other cases, that #here the dis-issal of an e-plo&ee

is for a 9ust cause but #ithout due process, the e-plo&er -ust inde-nif& the dis-issed e-plo&ee.

Petitioner -ust have failed to read the full teAt of >enphil or si-pl& chose to i(nore the sentence

i--ediatel& succeedin( the P",. inde-nit& enunciated therein. The case is eAplicit that the

-easure of the a#ard depends on the facts of each case and the (ravit& of the o-ission co--itted b&

the e-plo&er. In fact, in the recent case of Reta v. N7R!,E2 the !ourt sa# fit to i-pose P",. as

penalt& for the e-plo&er?s failure to co-pl& #ith the due process reBuire-ent. The ratiocination of

respondent Secretar& of 7abor should have put petitioner?s ar(u-ent at rest H

enphil , 3o/ever, si"!#1 !rovies t3e aut3orit1 to i"!ose t3e ine"nit1 it is not "eant to &e einitive as

to t3e a"ount o ine"nit1 a!!#i%a&#e in a## %ases, t3is &ein$ e!enent on t3e !arti%u#ar %ir%u"stan%es o a

%ase. Inee, in t3e #ater %ase o %aritime $eahorse v. NLRC, ).R. No. *+, / %a' 0*0, t3e Su!re"e Court

a!!#ie t3e enphil o%trine &ut a/are an ine"nit1 o P(,***.**. C#ear#1, t3ere is a re%o$nition t3at t3e a"ount

o ine"nit1 to &e a/are is su&e%t to t3e is%retion o t3e a$en%1 "a5in$ t3e a/ar, %onsierin$ a## attenant

%ir%u"stan%es.E=

7astl&, petitioner ar(ues that the retire-ent benefits (ranted b& respondent Secretar& of 7abor are in

eAcess of #hat is reBuired of it under the la# and #hat the Cnion de-ands. In particular, R.3. /6$"

(rants to the e-plo&ee retire-ent pa& eBuivalent to ".2 da&s per &ear of service onl& but respondent

Secretar& of 7abor (ranted the eBuivalent of .% da&s. To this, siA )6* -ore da&s #ere (ranted for

co-pulsor& retire-ent and three )0* da&s for optional retire-ent. The eAistin( provisions of the !<3, therespective proposals of the parties, and the a#ard of respondent Secretar& of 7abor are reproduced

hereunder H

EKISTING PROISIONS O; THE CA

a. Nor"a# Retire"ent










%o"!u#sor1 u!on rea%3in$ * 1ears o a$e or ater 9( 1ears o %ontinuous servi%e, /3i%3ever %o"es irst, !rovie

t3at t3ose /3o rea%3 (( or 3ave '* 1ears o uninterru!te servi%e "a1 &e retire at e"!#o1eeDs or Co"!u#sor1

o!tion.

PETITIONERS PROPOSA?


* 1ears o# R.A. +0'

&. O!tiona# Retire"ent

(( 1ears o# or '* 1ears o %ontinuous servi%e "ont3Ds &asi% sa#ar1 or ever1 1ear o %ontinuous servi%e !#us '

a1 eFuiva#ent !a1

UNIONDS PROPOSA?


'(* o &asi% sa#ar1


(* o &asi% sa#ar1 %o""en%in$ in t3e (t3 1ear o servi%e

SECRETARYDS AAR6

a. Co"!u#sor1 Retire"ent

An e"!#o1ee s3a## &e %o"!u#sor1 retire u!on rea%3in$ t3e a$e o sit1 2*4, or ater t3irt1-ive 29(4 1ears o

%ontinuous servi%e, /3i%3ever %o"es irst.

An e"!#o1ee s3a## &e entit#e to a retire"ent &eneit o "ont3 sa#ar1 !#us si 24 a1s "u#ti!#ie &1 t3e nu"&er

o 1ears in servi%e.


At 3is o!tion, an e"!#o1ee "a1 retire u!on rea%3in$ t3e a$e o it1-ive 2((4 or "ore i 3e 3as serve or at #east

ive 2(4 1ears

Provie, 3o/ever, t3at an1 e"!#o1ee /3o is uner it1-ive 2((4 1ears o# "a1 retire i 3e 3as renere at #east ten

2'*4 1ears o %ontinuous servi%e.

Su%3 an e"!#o1ee s3a## &e entit#e to a retire"ent &eneit o "ont3 sa#ar1 !#us t3ree 294 a1s "u#ti!#ie &1 t3e

nu"&er o 1ears in servi%e.



;or !ur!oses o %o"!utin$ %o"!u#sor1 san o!tiona# retire"ent &eneits an to a#i$n t3e %urrent retire"ent !#an

/it3 t3e "ini"u" stanars o Art. )=+ o t3e ?a&or Coe, as a"ene &1 R.A. +0', an Se%. ( 2(.)4 o its

i"!#e"entin$ ru#es, L'B) "ont3 sa#ar1 "eans )).( a1s sa#ar1, e%#usive o #eave %onversion &eneits.

3rticle 2/ of the 7abor !ode, as a-ended b& R.3. /6$", provides H

Art. )=+. Retirement. An1 e"!#o1ee "a1 &e retire u!on rea%3in$ t3e retire"ent a$e esta&#is3e in t3e %o##e%tive

&ar$ainin$ a$ree"ent or ot3er a!!#i%a&#e e"!#o1"ent %ontra%t.

In %ase o retire"ent, t3e e"!#o1ee s3a## &e entit#e to re%eive su%3 retire"ent &eneits as 3e "a1 3ave earne uner

eistin$ #a/s an an1 %o##e%tive &ar$ainin$ a$ree"ent an ot3er a$ree"ents: !rovie, 3o/ever, T3at an

e"!#o1eeDs retire"ent &eneits uner an1 %o##e%tive &ar$ainin$ an ot3er a$ree"ents shall not be less than those

provided herein.

In t3e a&sen%e o a retire"ent !#an or a$ree"ent !#an !roviin$ or retire"ent &eneits o e"!#o1ees in t3e

esta&#is3"ent, an e"!#o1ee u!on rea%3in$ t3e a$e o sit1 2*4 1ears or "ore, &ut not &e1on sit1-ive 2(4 1ears

/3i%3 is 3ere&1 e%#are t3e %o"!u#sor1 retire"ent a$e, /3o 3as serve at #east ive 2(4 1ears in t3e sai

esta&#is3"ent, "a1 retire an s3a## &e entit#e to retire"ent !a1 eFuiva#ent to at least one-3a# 2'B)4 "ont3 sa#ar1 or ever1 1ear o servi%e, a ra%tion o at #east si 24 "ont3s &ein$ %onsiere as one /3o#e 1ear.

1nless the parties provide for broader inclusions, t3e ter" Qone-3a# 2'B)4 "ont3 sa#ar1D s3a## "ean iteen 2'(4 a1s

!#us one-t/e#t3 2'B')4 o t3e '9t3 "ont3 !a1 an t3e %as3 eFuiva#ent o not "ore t3an ive 2(4 a1s o servi%e

in%entive #eaves 2ita#i%s su!!#ie4.

The records fail to disclose that petitioner bothered to infor- the !ourt ho# it arrived at ".2 da&s

as basis in the co-putation of the retire-ent pa&. 3n&#a&, it is clear in the la# that the ter- one4half

)"* -onth salar& -eans .% da&s8 "% da&s plus .% da&s representin( one4t#elfth )""* of the "0th

-onth pa& plus % da&s of service incentive leave. In this re(ard, there is no reason for petitioner to

co-plain that the retire-ent benefits (ranted b& respondent Secretar& of 7abor eAceeded the

reBuire-ents of la#.

>ith respect to the additional siA )6* da&s for co-pulsor& retire-ent and three )0* da&s for optional

retire-ent, these -a& appear in eAcess of the reBuire-ents of the la# and the de-and of respondent

Cnion. et, it should be noted that the la# -erel& establishes the -ini-u- retire-ent benefits as it

reco(ni:es that an e-plo&ee -a& receive -ore under eAistin( la#s and an& !<3 or other

a(ree-ents. <esides, respondent Secretar& of 7abor had to brea+ the bar(ainin( deadloc+. 3fter ta+in(

into account all the circu-stances, public respondent found it eApedient to stri+e a reasonable -iddle

(round bet#een the parties? respective positions. Cnless there are co(ent reasons, and #e do not find

an&, this !ourt #ill not alter, -odif& or reverse the factual findin(s of the Secretar& of 7abor because, b&

reason of her official position, she is considered to have acBuired eApertise as her 9urisdiction is confined

to specific -atters.E"

3s #e perceive it, b& desi(n or other#ise, petitioner?s ar(u-ents onl& scratch the surface, so to

spea+. The& do not eAtend beneath, as our studies of 9urisprudence and the la# disclose. Other#ise, the

baseless of the instant petition and the absence of an& of discretion, -uch less (rave, #ould have earlier

been eAposed.





&'ERE#ORE, the petition is DISMISSD. The Order of Ma& "==$ of respondent Secretar& of

7abor and her Resolution of 2 1ul& "==$ are 3FFIRMD.

SO ORERE.

cases about Redundancy.docx

Documents

Transcript of cases about Redundancy.docx