General Milling Vs Viajar
General Milling Vs Viajar
General Milling Vs Viajar
~uprcmc
tlbilippine~
<lCourt
;ifflanila
FIRST DIVISION
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
-versus-
Promulgated:
.
.
VIOLETA L. VIAJAR,
Respondent.
JAN 3
0_.....---'
X------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------X
DECISION
REYES, J.:
This is a Petition 1 for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court filed by petitioner General Milling Corporation (GMC),
asking the Court to set aside the Decision 2 dated September 21, 2007 and the
Resolution 3 dated January 30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 01734; and to reinstate the Decision4 dated October 28, 2005
and Resolution 5 dated January 31, 2006 of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. V-000416-05.
Decision
Id. at 6.
Id. at 61.
Id. at 90-122.
Id. at 27-28.
Id. at 28.
Decision
told her that her signature on the Application for Retirement and Benefits
was needed to process her separation pay. The respondent also claimed that
between the period of July 4, 2003 and October 13, 2003, GMC hired fifteen
(15) new employees which aroused her suspicion that her dismissal was not
necessary.11 At the time of her termination, the respondent was receiving
the salary rate of P19,651.41 per month.12
For its part, the petitioner insisted that Viajars dismissal was due to
the redundancy of her position. GMC reasoned out that it was forced to
terminate the services of the respondent because of the economic setbacks
the company was suffering which affected the companys profitability, and
the continuing rise of its operating and interest expenditures. Redundancy
was part of the petitioners concrete and actual cost reduction measures.
GMC also presented the required Establishment Termination Report which
it filed before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on
October 28, 2003, involving thirteen (13) of its employees, including Viajar.
Subsequently, GMC issued to the respondent two (2) checks respectively
amounting to P440,253.02 and P21,211.35 as her separation pay.13
On April 18, 2005, the Labor Arbiter (LA) of the NLRC RAB No.
VII, Cebu City, rendered a Decision, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, judgment is hereby
rendered declaring that respondents acted in good faith in terminating the
complainant from the service due to redundancy of works, thus,
complainants refusal to accept the payment of her allowed separation pay
and other benefits under the law is NOT JUSTIFIED both in fact and law,
and so, therefore complainants case for illegal dismissal against the herein
respondents and so are complainants monetary claims are hereby ordered
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.14
Id. at 102.
Id. at 91.
Id. at 28.
Id. at 176.
Id. at 172-176.
Decision
The NLRC, however, stated that it did not agree with the LA that
Viajar should be faulted for failing to question the petitioners declaration of
redundancy before the DOLE Regional Office, Region VII, Cebu City. It
was not imperative for Viajar to challenge the validity of her termination due
to redundancy.17 Notwithstanding, the NLRC affirmed the findings of the
LA that Viajars dismissal was legal considering that GMC complied with
the requirements provided for under Article 283 of the Labor Code and
existing jurisprudence, particularly citing Asian Alcohol Corporation v.
NLRC.18 The NLRC further stated that Viajar was aware of GMCs
reduction mode, as shown in the GMC Vismin Manpower Complement, as
follows:
Year
Manpower Profile
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
795
782
736
721
697
696 (As of June 2005)
No. of Employees
Terminated (Redundancy)
41
24
16
0619
16
17
18
19
20
Id. at 224-225.
Id. at 222.
364 Phil. 912 (1999).
Rollo, p. 223.
Id. at 223-224.
Decision
Undaunted, Viajar filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. In the
now assailed Decision dated September 21, 2007, the CA granted the
petition, reversing the decision of the NLRC in the following manner:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Petition for Certiorari
is GRANTED. The Decision, dated 28 October 2005, and Resolution,
dated 31 January 2006 respectively, of public respondent National Labor
Relations Commission-Fourth Division, Cebu City, in NLRC Case No. V000416-05 (RAB VII-12-2495-03) are SET ASIDE. A new judgment is
entered DECLARING the dismissal ILLEGAL and ordering respondent to
reinstate petitioner without loss of seniority rights and other privileges
with full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits computed
from the time she was dismissed on 30 November 2003 up to the date of
actual reinstatement. Further, moral and exemplary damages, in the
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos ([P]50,000.00) each; and attorneys fees
equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award, are awarded.
Costs against respondent.
SO ORDERED.21
21
22
I.
II.
III.
Id. at 37-38.
Id. at 10.
Decision
Id. at 11.
Eureka Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. Valencia, G.R. No. 159358, July 15, 2009, 593
SCRA 36, 44.
25
Id.; see also Bernarte v. Philippine Basketball Association (PBA), G.R. No. 192084, September 14,
2011, 657 SCRA 745.
26
Janssen Pharmaceutica v. Silayro, G.R. No. 172528, February 26, 2008, 546 SCRA 628, 640.
27
Sunset View Condominium Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 87799, December 15, 1993, 228 SCRA
466, 470-471; Arc-Men Food Industries Corp. v. NLRC, 436 Phil. 371, 379 (2002).
28
Fujitsu Computer Products Corp. of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals, 494 Phil. 697, 716 (2005).
29
Rollo, p. 58.
24
Decision
Report as prescribed by the DOLE;30 (iii) the two (2) checks issued in the
respondents name amounting to P440,253.02 and P21,211.35 as separation
pay;31 and (iv) the list of dismissed employees as of June 6, 2006 to show
that GMC was in a reduction mode.32 Both the LA and the NLRC found
these sufficient to prove that the dismissal on the ground of redundancy was
done in good faith.
The Court does not agree.
Article 283 of the Labor Code provides that redundancy is one of the
authorized causes for dismissal. It reads:
Article 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel.
The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to
the installment 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 worker 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 reverses, the separation
pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or 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. (Emphasis
supplied)
30
Id. at 60.
Id. at 59.
32
Id. at 361.
33
Lopez Sugar Corp. v. Franco, 497 Phil. 806, 818 (2005); Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications
Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 165381, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 338, 355; Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 159641, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 175, 187.
31
Decision
34
35
36
37
Decision
In the instant case, the Court agrees with the CA when it held that the
petitioner failed to present substantial proof to support GMCs general
allegations of redundancy. As shown from the records, the petitioner simply
presented as its evidence of good faith and compliance with the law the
notification letter to respondent Viajar;39 the Establishment Termination
Report it submitted to the DOLE Office;40 the two (2) checks issued in the
respondents name amounting to P440,253.02 and P21,211.35;41 and the list
of terminated employees as of June 6, 2006.42 We agree with the CA that
these are not enough proof for the valid termination of Viajars employment
on the ground of redundancy.
The letter-memorandum which contains general allegations is not
enough to convince this Court that Viajars termination of employment due
to redundancy was warranted under the circumstances. There is no showing
that GMC made an evaluation of the existing positions and their effect to the
company. Neither did GMC exert efforts to present tangible proof that it
was experiencing business slow down or over hiring. The Establishment
Termination Report it submitted to the DOLE Office did not account for
anything to justify declaring the positions redundant. The Court notes that
the list of terminated employees presented by GMC was a list taken as of
June 6, 2006 or almost three years after the respondent was illegally
dismissed and almost a year after the LA promulgated its decision. While
the petitioner had been harping that it was on a reduction mode of its
employees, it has not presented any evidence (such as new staffing pattern,
feasibility studies or proposal, viability of newly created positions, job
description and the approval of the management of the restructuring,43
audited financial documents like balance sheets, annual income tax returns
and others)44 which could readily show that the companys declaration of
redundant positions was justified. Such proofs, if presented, would suffice
to show the good faith on the part of the employer or that this business
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Id. at 187.
Rollo, p. 58.
Id. at 60.
Id. at 59.
Id. at 361.
Andrada v. NLRC, G.R. No. 173231, December 28, 2007, 541 SCRA 538, 562.
See Asian Alcohol Corp. v. NLRC, supra note 18, at 927.
Decision
10
Copy of Newsmill, Official Newsletter of GMC, July-December 2003 Issues; rollo, p. 170.
Columbus Philippines Bus Corp. v. NLRC, 417 Phil. 81, 100 (2001).
G.R. No. 168927, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 438.
Decision
11
Clearly, the instant case is not about retirement since the term has its
peculiar meaning and is governed by Article 287 of the Labor Code. Rather,
this is a case of termination due to redundancy under Article 283 of the
Labor Code. Thus, the demand of GMC for the respondent to sign an
Application for Retirement and Benefits is really suspect.
Finally, the Court agrees with the CA that the award of moral and
exemplary damages is proper. The Court has awarded moral damages in
termination cases when bad faith, malice or fraud attend the employees
dismissal or where the act oppresses labor, or where it was done in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.49 We quote with favor
the findings of the CA:
We also award moral and exemplary damages to petitioner. While
it is true that good faith is presumed, the circumstances surrounding the
dismissal of petitioner negate its existence. Moral damages may be
recovered only where the dismissal of the employee was tainted by bad
faith or fraud, or where it constituted an act oppressive to labor, and done
in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy while
exemplary damages are recoverable only if the dismissal was done in a
wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner. To reiterate, immediately
after receipt of her termination letter which was effective on 30
November 2003, petitioner was no longer treated as an employee of
respondent as early as the 31st of October 2003; she was already barred
from entering the company premises; she was deprived access to her
office computer; and she was excluded from the bandy [sic] clock. She
was also made to sign documents, including an APPLICATION FOR
RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS in the guise of payment of her
separation pay. When petitioner confronted her immediate superior
regarding her termination, the latters shock aggravated her confusion and
suffering. She also learned about the employment of a number of new
employees, several of whom were even employed in her former
department. Petitioner likewise suffered mental torture brought about by
her termination even though its cause was not clear and substantiated.50
(Citations omitted)
48
49
Id. at 444-446.
San Miguel Properties Philippines, Inc., v. Gucaban, G.R. No. 153982, July 18, 2011, 654 SCRA
18, 33.
50
12
Decision
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
~~~~
-----~
'J
~
TINs. VILLARA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII _of the Constitution, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.