Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FE S. SEBUGUERO v. NLRC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 181719 2014-04-21	EUGENE S. ARABIT v. JARDINE PACIFIC FINANCE BRION, J.
We cannot accept Jardine's shallow understanding of the concepts of redundancy and retrenchment in determining the validity of the severance of an employer-employee relationship. The fact that they are found together in just one provision does not necessarily give rise to the conclusion that the difference between them is immaterial. This Court has already ruled before that retrenchment and redundancy are two different concepts; they are not synonymous; thus, they should not be used interchangeably.[50] The clear distinction between these two concepts was discussed in Andrada, et al., v. NLRC,[51] citing the case of Sebuguero v. NLRC,[52] where this Court clarified: Redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. A position is redundant where it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors, such as over hiring of workers, decreased volume of business, or dropping of a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.
	GR No. 174300 2012-12-05	MINDANAO TERMINAL v. NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA MINTERBRO–SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In a Decision dated April 21, 2006, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. It ruled that the seasonal nature of the services rendered by the members of the union did not negate their status as regular employees and that the temporary suspension of Minterbro's operations should be reckoned from April 14, 1997, the day no more vessel was serviced at Minterbro's pier after MV Bosco Polar was serviced at the said pier on April 11 to 13, 1997. Thus, pursuant to Article 286 of the Labor Code and its application in Sebuguero v. National Labor Relations Commission,[29] the NLRC correctly ordered Minterbro and De Castro to pay the union members their separation benefits as their temporary lay-off exceeded six months.
	GR No. 173231 2007-12-28	RUBEN L. ANDRADA v. NLRC VELASCO JR., J.
Retrenchment and redundancy are two different concepts; they are not synonymous and therefore should not be used interchangeably. This Court explained in detail the difference between the two concepts in Sebuguero v. NLRC:[13]
	GR NO. 167959 2006-04-19	FILIPINAS SYSTEMS 'FILSYSTEMS v. ERNESTO GATLABAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
Petitioners claim that the lack of notice requirement does not ipso facto render respondents' dismissal illegal, considering that their work was suspended by reason of redundancy due to the completion of their last project. They cite the ruling of this Court in Sebuguero, et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[18] which upheld the validity of the retrenchment notwithstanding the lack of written notices to petitioners therein and the DOLE.
	GR NO. 162233 2006-03-10	RONALDO B. CASIMIRO v. STERN REAL ESTATE INC. REMBRANDT HOTEL CALLEJO, SR., J.
Article 283 [41] of the Labor Code of the Philippines authorizes retrenchment as one of the valid causes to dismiss employees as a measure to avoid or minimize business losses. [42] Retrenchment is the "termination of employment initiated by the employer through no fault of the employees and without prejudice to the latter, resorted to by management during periods of business recession, industrial depression, or seasonal fluctuations, or during lulls occasioned by lack of orders, shortage of materials, conversion of the plant for a new production program or the introduction of new methods or more efficient machinery, or of automation." [43] Simply put, it is a reduction in manpower, a measure utilized by an employer to minimize losses incurred in the operation of its business. It is a management prerogative consistently recognized and affirmed by this Court. [44] In Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. v. Daguman, [45] we enumerated the requirements for a valid retrenchment which the employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence:x x x (1) that retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer; (2) that the employer served written notice both to the employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; (3) that the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher; (4) that the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench employees in good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure; and (5) that the employer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers. [46]
	GR NO. 147002 2005-04-15	PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
The petitioners insist that the one-month notice requirement does not apply in this situation, as the retrenchment involved was merely temporary and not permanent. They aver that this has been recognized by this Court, and quote Sebuguero v. NLRC[28] in this manner:Article 283 speaks of a permanent retrenchment as opposed to a temporary lay-off as is the case here. There is no specific provision of law which treats of a temporary retrenchment or lay-off and provides for the requisites in effecting it or a period or duration therefor.[29]
	GR No. 158693 2004-11-17	JENNY M. AGABON v. NLRC YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In Sebuguero v. National Labor Relations Commission,[28] the dismissal was for a just and valid cause but the employee was not accorded due process. The dismissal was upheld by the Court but the employer was sanctioned. The sanction should be in the nature of indemnification or penalty, and depends on the facts of each case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer.
	GR No. 117040 2000-01-27	RUBEN SERRANO v. NLRC MENDOZA, J.
The rule reversed a long standing policy theretofore followed that even though the dismissal is based on a just cause or the termination of employment is for an authorized cause, the dismissal or termination is illegal if effected without notice to the employee. The shift in doctrine took place in 1989 in Wenphil Corp. v. NLRC.[20] In announcing the change, this Court said:[21]