This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Redundancy exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the enterprise.[16] 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 previously undertaken by the business.[17] Under these factors, the employer has no legal obligation to keep in its payroll more employees than are necessary for the operation of its business.[18] Even if a business is doing well, an employer can still validly dismiss an employee from the service due to redundancy if that employee's position has already become in excess of what the employer's enterprise requires.[19] | |||||
|
2014-09-24 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that when supported by substantial evidence, factual findings made by quasi-judicial and administrative bodies are accorded great respect and even finality by the courts. These findings are not infallible, though; when there is a showing that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record, they may be examined by the courts.[11] In this case, inasmuch as the LA's conclusions differ from that of the NLRC and the CA, the Court must now exercise its power of review and resolve the issues raised by the petitioners. In undertaking such review, the Court bears in mind that the CA decision must be examined from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct.[12] | |||||