Lawyerly

GR No. 170054

2013-01-21

PERALTA, J.

case has one of the restrictions- the presence of specific CBA provisions unlike in San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO v. Bersamira,[26] De Ocampo v. NLRC,[27] Asian Alcohol Corporation v. NLRC, [28] and Serrano v. NLRC[29] cited by the Company. To reiterate, the CBA is the norm of conduct between the parties and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law.[30]

GR No. 175481

2012-11-21

DIONISIO F. AUZA v. MOL PHILIPPINES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In addition, it is well to note that Auza and Otarra are managerial employees and not ordinary workers who cannot be easily coerced or intimidated into signing something against their will.[58] As borne out by the records, Auza was the Local Chairman of International Shipping Lines Association for five years, president of their Homeowner's Association and an active member of his community. Otarra, on the other hand, was officer of various church organizations and a college professor at the University of the Visayas.[59] Their standing in society depicts how highly educated and intelligent persons they are as to know fully well the consequences of their acts in executing and signing letters of resignation and quitclaims. Although quitclaims are generally against public policy, voluntary agreements entered into and represented by a reasonable settlement are binding on the parties which may not be later disowned simply because of a change of mind.[60] "It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of the settlement are unconscionable, that the law will step in to bail out the employee."[61] Hence, we uphold the validity of the quitclaims signed by petitioners in exchange for the separation benefits they received from respondents.

GR No. 165923

2010-09-29

SHIMIZU PHILS. CONTRACTORS v. VIRGILIO P. CALLANTA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

(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, x x x efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.[25]

GR No. 166703

2008-04-14

AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE v. ELY GARCIA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Redundancy exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the business enterprise. A reasonably redundant position is one rendered superfluous by any number of factors, such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business, dropping of a particular product line previously manufactured by the company or phasing out of service activity priorly undertaken by the business. Among the requisites of a valid redundancy program are: (1) the good faith of the employer in abolishing the redundant position; and (2) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished.[22]

GR No. 172363

2008-03-07

JUVY M. MANATAD v. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Normally, the condition of business losses is shown by audited financial documents like yearly balance sheets, profit and loss statements and annual income tax returns. The financial statements must be prepared and signed by independent auditors failing which they can be assailed as self-serving documents. No evidence can best attest to a company's economic status other than its financial statement. We defined the evidentiary weight accorded to audited financial statements in Asian Alcohol Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission[23]:The condition of business losses is normally shown by audited financial documents like yearly balance sheets and profit and loss statements as well as annual income tax returns. It is our ruling that financial statements must be prepared and signed by independent auditors. Unless duly audited, they can be assailed as self-serving documents. But it is not enough that only the financial statements for the year during which retrenchment was undertaken, are presented in evidence. For it may happen that while the company has indeed been losing, its losses may be on a downward trend, indicating that business is picking up and retrenchment, being a drastic move, should no longer be resorted to. Thus, the failure of the employer to show its income or loss for the immediately preceding year or to prove that it expected no abatement of such losses in the coming years, may bespeak the weakness of its cause. It is necessary that the employer also show that its losses increased through a period of time and that the condition of the company is not likely to improve in the near future. Being guided accordingly, we find that respondent was fully justified in implementing a retrenchment program since it was undergoing business reverses, not only for a single fiscal year, but for several years prior to and even after the program. In a span of six years, respondent realized profits only in one year, in 1997. We thus quote with approval the disquisition of the Court of Appeals:

GR NO. 148132

2008-01-23

SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. REGINA M. ASTORGA

NACHURA, J.

Indeed, out of our concern for those lesser circumstanced in life, this Court has inclined towards the worker and upheld his cause in most of his conflicts with his employer. This favored treatment is consonant with the social justice policy of the Constitution. But while tilting the scales of justice in favor of workers, the fundamental law also guarantees the right of the employer to reasonable returns for his investment.[38] In this light, we must acknowledge the prerogative of the employer to adopt such measures as will promote greater efficiency, reduce overhead costs and enhance prospects of economic gains, albeit always within the framework of existing laws. Accordingly, we sustain the reorganization and redundancy program undertaken by SMART.

GR NO. 168719

2006-02-22

PHILIPPINE CARPET EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

xxx (1) that the 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 month pay or at least ½ 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 (i.e., whether they are temporary, casual, regular or managerial employees), efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.[49]

GR NO. 148195

2005-05-16

LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION v. LEONITO G. FRANCO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

In Asian Alcohol Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[23] the Court ruled that redundancy exists when the service capability of the work force is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands on the enterprise. The Court proceeded to expound, as follows:A redundant position is one rendered superfluous by any number of factors, such as over-hiring of workers, decreased volume of business, dropping of a particular product line previously manufactured by the company or phasing out of a service activity priorly undertaken by the business. Under these conditions, the employer has no legal obligation to keep in its payroll more employees than are necessary for the operation of its business.[24]

GR No. 117040

2000-01-27

RUBEN SERRANO v. NLRC

MENDOZA, J.

In Asian Alcohol Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[10] the Court likewise upheld the termination of employment of water pump tenders and their replacement by independent contractors. It ruled that an employer's good faith in implementing a redundancy program is not necessarily put in doubt by the availment of the services of an independent contractor to replace the services of the terminated employees to promote economy and efficiency.

GR No. 117040

2000-01-27

RUBEN SERRANO v. NLRC

MENDOZA, J.

Indeed, as we pointed out in another case, the "[management of a company] cannot be denied the faculty of promoting efficiency and attaining economy by a study of what units are essential for its operation. To it belongs the ultimate determination of whether services should be performed by its personnel or contracted to outside agencies . . . [While there] should be mutual consultation, eventually deference is to be paid to what management decides."[11] Consequently, absent proof that management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere with the exercise of judgment by an employer.[12]

	GR No. 170054 2013-01-21	GOYA v. GOYA PERALTA, J.
case has one of the restrictions- the presence of specific CBA provisions unlike in San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO v. Bersamira,[26] De Ocampo v. NLRC,[27] Asian Alcohol Corporation v. NLRC, [28] and Serrano v. NLRC[29] cited by the Company. To reiterate, the CBA is the norm of conduct between the parties and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law.[30]
	GR No. 175481 2012-11-21	DIONISIO F. AUZA v. MOL PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
In addition, it is well to note that Auza and Otarra are managerial employees and not ordinary workers who cannot be easily coerced or intimidated into signing something against their will.[58] As borne out by the records, Auza was the Local Chairman of International Shipping Lines Association for five years, president of their Homeowner's Association and an active member of his community. Otarra, on the other hand, was officer of various church organizations and a college professor at the University of the Visayas.[59] Their standing in society depicts how highly educated and intelligent persons they are as to know fully well the consequences of their acts in executing and signing letters of resignation and quitclaims. Although quitclaims are generally against public policy, voluntary agreements entered into and represented by a reasonable settlement are binding on the parties which may not be later disowned simply because of a change of mind.[60] "It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of the settlement are unconscionable, that the law will step in to bail out the employee."[61] Hence, we uphold the validity of the quitclaims signed by petitioners in exchange for the separation benefits they received from respondents.
	GR No. 165923 2010-09-29	SHIMIZU PHILS. CONTRACTORS v. VIRGILIO P. CALLANTA DEL CASTILLO, J.
(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, x x x efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.[25]
	GR No. 166703 2008-04-14	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE v. ELY GARCIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Redundancy exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the business enterprise. A reasonably redundant position is one rendered superfluous by any number of factors, such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business, dropping of a particular product line previously manufactured by the company or phasing out of service activity priorly undertaken by the business. Among the requisites of a valid redundancy program are: (1) the good faith of the employer in abolishing the redundant position; and (2) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished.[22]
	GR No. 172363 2008-03-07	JUVY M. MANATAD v. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Normally, the condition of business losses is shown by audited financial documents like yearly balance sheets, profit and loss statements and annual income tax returns. The financial statements must be prepared and signed by independent auditors failing which they can be assailed as self-serving documents. No evidence can best attest to a company's economic status other than its financial statement. We defined the evidentiary weight accorded to audited financial statements in Asian Alcohol Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission[23]:The condition of business losses is normally shown by audited financial documents like yearly balance sheets and profit and loss statements as well as annual income tax returns. It is our ruling that financial statements must be prepared and signed by independent auditors. Unless duly audited, they can be assailed as self-serving documents. But it is not enough that only the financial statements for the year during which retrenchment was undertaken, are presented in evidence. For it may happen that while the company has indeed been losing, its losses may be on a downward trend, indicating that business is picking up and retrenchment, being a drastic move, should no longer be resorted to. Thus, the failure of the employer to show its income or loss for the immediately preceding year or to prove that it expected no abatement of such losses in the coming years, may bespeak the weakness of its cause. It is necessary that the employer also show that its losses increased through a period of time and that the condition of the company is not likely to improve in the near future. Being guided accordingly, we find that respondent was fully justified in implementing a retrenchment program since it was undergoing business reverses, not only for a single fiscal year, but for several years prior to and even after the program. In a span of six years, respondent realized profits only in one year, in 1997. We thus quote with approval the disquisition of the Court of Appeals:
	GR NO. 148132 2008-01-23	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. REGINA M. ASTORGA NACHURA, J.
Indeed, out of our concern for those lesser circumstanced in life, this Court has inclined towards the worker and upheld his cause in most of his conflicts with his employer. This favored treatment is consonant with the social justice policy of the Constitution. But while tilting the scales of justice in favor of workers, the fundamental law also guarantees the right of the employer to reasonable returns for his investment.[38] In this light, we must acknowledge the prerogative of the employer to adopt such measures as will promote greater efficiency, reduce overhead costs and enhance prospects of economic gains, albeit always within the framework of existing laws. Accordingly, we sustain the reorganization and redundancy program undertaken by SMART.
	GR NO. 168719 2006-02-22	PHILIPPINE CARPET EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
xxx (1) that the 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 month pay or at least ½ 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 (i.e., whether they are temporary, casual, regular or managerial employees), efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.[49]
	GR NO. 148195 2005-05-16	LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION v. LEONITO G. FRANCO CALLEJO, SR., J.
In Asian Alcohol Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[23] the Court ruled that redundancy exists when the service capability of the work force is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands on the enterprise. The Court proceeded to expound, as follows:A redundant position is one rendered superfluous by any number of factors, such as over-hiring of workers, decreased volume of business, dropping of a particular product line previously manufactured by the company or phasing out of a service activity priorly undertaken by the business. Under these conditions, the employer has no legal obligation to keep in its payroll more employees than are necessary for the operation of its business.[24]
	GR No. 117040 2000-01-27	RUBEN SERRANO v. NLRC MENDOZA, J.
In Asian Alcohol Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[10] the Court likewise upheld the termination of employment of water pump tenders and their replacement by independent contractors. It ruled that an employer's good faith in implementing a redundancy program is not necessarily put in doubt by the availment of the services of an independent contractor to replace the services of the terminated employees to promote economy and efficiency.
	GR No. 117040 2000-01-27	RUBEN SERRANO v. NLRC MENDOZA, J.
Indeed, as we pointed out in another case, the "[management of a company] cannot be denied the faculty of promoting efficiency and attaining economy by a study of what units are essential for its operation. To it belongs the ultimate determination of whether services should be performed by its personnel or contracted to outside agencies . . . [While there] should be mutual consultation, eventually deference is to be paid to what management decides."[11] Consequently, absent proof that management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere with the exercise of judgment by an employer.[12]

ASIAN ALCOHOL CORPORATION v. NLRC