Lawyerly

GR No. 183753

2009-06-19

ARCHINET INTERNATIONAL v. BECCO PHILIPPINES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is noteworthy that the Secretary's Certificate was executed on August 9, 2005, well before the order for discretionary execution was issued. Indeed, while respondents had every opportunity to present it, they failed to do so and no explanation for such failure has been offered to date. The same can be said with respect to the Owners' Agreement[46] dated September 7, 2001, between Beccomax and Somerset Hospitality Holdings (Phils.) Inc. That respondents presented the documents for the first time before the Court of Appeals is lamentable considering that the admission of evidence is outside the sphere of the appellate court's certiorari jurisdiction.[47]

GR No. 166760

2008-08-22

EASTRIDGE GOLF CLUB v. EASTRIDGE GOLF CLUB

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

With a similar outcome was the closure of the brokerage department of the corporation in Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. v. Daguman.[63] In view of evidence consisting of a mere letter written by the corporation to its clientele that its brokerage department was still operating but with a new staff, the Court declared the earlier closure of the corporation's brokerage department not bona fide and ordered the reinstatement of its former staff, despite the latter having signed quitclaims and release forms acknowledging payment of separation benefits.

GR No. 164624

2008-08-11

SARI-SARI GROUP OF COMPANIES v. PIGLAS KAMAO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the CA does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the LA and the NLRC based their conclusion. The query in the proceeding before the CA is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision. However, as an exception, the appellate court may examine and measure the factual findings of the NLRC if the same are not supported by substantial evidence.[51] We find this exception applicable to the case at bar.

GR Nos. 151983-84

2008-07-31

JOSE MAX S. ORTIZ v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

There is no specific provision in the Labor Code, as amended, which requires the conformity of petitioner, as the complainants' counsel, to make their Deeds of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim valid. The only requisites for the validity of any Deed of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim are the following: (1) that there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties; (2) that the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and (3) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.[49] In this case, it cannot be questioned that those requisites were completely satisfied, making the Deeds of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim individually executed by the complainants valid.

GR NO. 159919

2007-08-08

COMPOSITE ENTERPRISES v. EMILIO M. CAPAROSO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In the discharge of these requirements, it is the employer who has the onus, this being in the nature of an affirmative defense.[44] In other words, it is not enough for a company to merely declare that it has implemented a retrenchment program. It must produce adequate proof that such is the actual situation to justify the retrenchment of employees. 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 these can be assailed as self-serving documents.[45]

GR NO. 165594

2007-04-23

FRANCISCO SORIANO v. NLRC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the appellate court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusion. The query in this proceeding is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision. However, as an exception, the appellate court may examine and measure the factual findings of the NLRC if the same are not supported by substantial evidence.[29]

GR NO. 166039

2006-06-26

DIGITEL v. MARIQUIT SORIANO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Judicial review of decisions of the NLRC via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is confined only to issues of lack or excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.[37] Thus Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. v. Daguman[38] teaches: x x x As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court under which the petition was brought to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the labor arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusions, the query being limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its resolution, except if the findings of the NLRC are not supported by substantial evidence.[39] (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied) In her petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, Mariquit attributed to the NLRC the commission of grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction "in dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal[,] ignoring clear and convincing proof of sexual harassment."[40] (Underscoring supplied)

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. 162233

2006-03-10

RONALDO B. CASIMIRO v. STERN REAL ESTATE INC. REMBRANDT HOTEL

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Verily, it is neither the function of the law nor its intent to supplant the prerogative of management in running its business, such as, to compel the latter to operate at a continuing loss simply because it has to maintain its workers in employment. Such an act would be tantamount to the taking of property without due process of law. [52]

GR NO. 164518

2006-01-25

INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORPORATION v. VIRGILIO ABABON

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

ART. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or to at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year. A reading of the foregoing law shows that a partial or total closure or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking may either be due to serious business losses or financial reverses or otherwise. Under the first kind, the employer must sufficiently and convincingly prove its allegation of substantial losses,[29] while under the second kind, the employer can lawfully close shop anytime[30] as long as cessation of or withdrawal from business operations was bona fide in character and not impelled by a motive to defeat or circumvent the tenurial rights of employees,[31] and as long as he pays his employees their termination pay in the amount corresponding to their length of service.[32] Just as no law forces anyone to go into business, no law can compel anybody to continue the same. It would be stretching the intent and spirit of the law if a court interferes with management's prerogative to close or cease its business operations just because the business is not suffering from any loss or because of the desire to provide the workers continued employment.[33]

	GR No. 183753 2009-06-19	ARCHINET INTERNATIONAL v. BECCO PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is noteworthy that the Secretary's Certificate was executed on August 9, 2005, well before the order for discretionary execution was issued. Indeed, while respondents had every opportunity to present it, they failed to do so and no explanation for such failure has been offered to date. The same can be said with respect to the Owners' Agreement[46] dated September 7, 2001, between Beccomax and Somerset Hospitality Holdings (Phils.) Inc. That respondents presented the documents for the first time before the Court of Appeals is lamentable considering that the admission of evidence is outside the sphere of the appellate court's certiorari jurisdiction.[47]
	GR No. 166760 2008-08-22	EASTRIDGE GOLF CLUB v. EASTRIDGE GOLF CLUB AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
With a similar outcome was the closure of the brokerage department of the corporation in Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. v. Daguman.[63] In view of evidence consisting of a mere letter written by the corporation to its clientele that its brokerage department was still operating but with a new staff, the Court declared the earlier closure of the corporation's brokerage department not bona fide and ordered the reinstatement of its former staff, despite the latter having signed quitclaims and release forms acknowledging payment of separation benefits.
	GR No. 164624 2008-08-11	SARI-SARI GROUP OF COMPANIES v. PIGLAS KAMAO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the CA does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the LA and the NLRC based their conclusion. The query in the proceeding before the CA is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision. However, as an exception, the appellate court may examine and measure the factual findings of the NLRC if the same are not supported by substantial evidence.[51] We find this exception applicable to the case at bar.
	GR Nos. 151983-84 2008-07-31	JOSE MAX S. ORTIZ v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is no specific provision in the Labor Code, as amended, which requires the conformity of petitioner, as the complainants' counsel, to make their Deeds of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim valid. The only requisites for the validity of any Deed of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim are the following: (1) that there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties; (2) that the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and (3) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.[49] In this case, it cannot be questioned that those requisites were completely satisfied, making the Deeds of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim individually executed by the complainants valid.
	GR NO. 159919 2007-08-08	COMPOSITE ENTERPRISES v. EMILIO M. CAPAROSO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the discharge of these requirements, it is the employer who has the onus, this being in the nature of an affirmative defense.[44] In other words, it is not enough for a company to merely declare that it has implemented a retrenchment program. It must produce adequate proof that such is the actual situation to justify the retrenchment of employees. 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 these can be assailed as self-serving documents.[45]
	GR NO. 165594 2007-04-23	FRANCISCO SORIANO v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the appellate court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusion. The query in this proceeding is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision. However, as an exception, the appellate court may examine and measure the factual findings of the NLRC if the same are not supported by substantial evidence.[29]
	GR NO. 166039 2006-06-26	DIGITEL v. MARIQUIT SORIANO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Judicial review of decisions of the NLRC via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is confined only to issues of lack or excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.[37] Thus Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. v. Daguman[38] teaches: x x x As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court under which the petition was brought to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the labor arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusions, the query being limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its resolution, except if the findings of the NLRC are not supported by substantial evidence.[39] (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied) In her petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, Mariquit attributed to the NLRC the commission of grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction "in dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal[,] ignoring clear and convincing proof of sexual harassment."[40] (Underscoring supplied)
	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. 162233 2006-03-10	RONALDO B. CASIMIRO v. STERN REAL ESTATE INC. REMBRANDT HOTEL CALLEJO, SR., J.
Verily, it is neither the function of the law nor its intent to supplant the prerogative of management in running its business, such as, to compel the latter to operate at a continuing loss simply because it has to maintain its workers in employment. Such an act would be tantamount to the taking of property without due process of law. [52]
	GR NO. 164518 2006-01-25	INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORPORATION v. VIRGILIO ABABON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
ART. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or to at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year. A reading of the foregoing law shows that a partial or total closure or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking may either be due to serious business losses or financial reverses or otherwise. Under the first kind, the employer must sufficiently and convincingly prove its allegation of substantial losses,[29] while under the second kind, the employer can lawfully close shop anytime[30] as long as cessation of or withdrawal from business operations was bona fide in character and not impelled by a motive to defeat or circumvent the tenurial rights of employees,[31] and as long as he pays his employees their termination pay in the amount corresponding to their length of service.[32] Just as no law forces anyone to go into business, no law can compel anybody to continue the same. It would be stretching the intent and spirit of the law if a court interferes with management's prerogative to close or cease its business operations just because the business is not suffering from any loss or because of the desire to provide the workers continued employment.[33]

DANZAS INTERCONTINENTAL v. HENRY M. DAGUMAN