Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
180866, 02
March 2010
FACTS: Petitioner Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. is engaged in the business of making, buying and
selling tiles, marbles, mosaics, and other similar products while respondent Lepanto Ceramics
Employees Association is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of petitioner. In December
1998, petitioner gave P3000 bonus to its employees. Subsequently, petitioner and respondent
entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement which granted a Christmas gift package/bonus to
employees. In the succeeding years, the bonuses were given by way of Tile Redemption
Certificates equivalent to P3000. However, in 2002, petitioner gave year-end cash benefit of
P600 and offered a cash advance to interested employees equivalent to 1 month salary
payable in one year. Respondent objected to the same arguing it was in violation of the CBA
and considering it had ripen into a traditional practice of the company to give P3000 bonus at the
end of each year whether it be in the form of cash or company tiles. On the other hand, petitioner
averred that the complaint has no basis as the same was not a demandable and enforceable
obligation and besides, the company was also suffering from financial losses. When it was
referred to the Voluntary Arbitrator, it granted the members of the respondent association a
Christmas Bonus of P3000.
ISSUE: Is petitioner obliged to give the members of the respondent Association a Christmas
bonus of P3000?
DECISION: YES. Generally, a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation. For a
bonus to be enforceable, it must have been promised by the employer and expressly agreed
upon by the parties. Given that the bonus in this case is integrated in the CBA, the same takes
the nature of a demandable obligation. By virtue of its incorporation in the CBA, the Christmas
bonus due to respondent Association has become more than just an act of generosity on the
part of the petitioner but a contractual obligation it has undertaken.
National Sugar Refineries Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 122277 February 24, 1998
FACTS: NASUREFCO is a domestic corporation engaged in sugar refinery. It launched its Raw
and Refined Sugar Exchange Program where clients of NASUREFCO were no longer required
to deliver raw sugar as precondition to their withdrawal of refined sugar. All they had to do was
to present properly endorsed documents chargeable against their future deliveries of raw sugar to
NASUREFCO. Susan Pabiona was appointed as Sugar Accountant-Bookkeeper. She was tasked
to maintain records of all transactions pertaining to the Raw and Refined Sugar Exchange
Program, validate Raw Sugar Quedans submitted by Exchange participants prior to issuance of
the Refined Sugar Delivery Orders only after validation procedures have been properly complied
with. When the books of NASUREFCO were audited in 1990, it was found out that Fabiona
issued a Refined Sugar Delivery Order to Shantung Commercial without even seeing the
corresponding Raw Sugar Quedan or Delivery Order. Consequently, Shantung Commercial was
able to withdraw a larger quantity of refined sugar that what was allowable to it. NASUREFCO
later terminated the services of Pabiona for willful violation of company policies, gross and
habitual neglect of duties, and willful breach of trust. The Labor Arbiter later held that private
respondent Pabiona was illegally dismissed by NASURFECO since the duties which she
performed for which she was charged of neglect, were not within her ordinary functions as per
job description. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter ruling that Pabionas infractions were
neither gross nor habitual, but that she merely failed to exercise due diligence in performing her
duties, and the same does not constitute a sufficient ground to cause her termination.
ISSUE: Was Pabionas neglect of duty considered gross and habitual?
DECISION: YES. Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal, must be both gross and
habitual. In the instant case, Pabionas neglect of duty was gross. As her position related to
money matters, she was expected and required to be extra vigilant in the performance of her job
as it involved the financial interest of the company. She was also habitually remiss in her duties.
She issued a Refined Sugar Deliver Order to Shantung Commercial without first examining the
corresponding Raw Sugar Quedan and Delivery Order. Consequently, Shantung Commercial was
able to withdraw a larger quantity of refined sugar than what was allowable to it.
Agustillo vs. Court of Appeals and San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 142875, September
07, 2001
FACTS: In June 1979, petitioner Edgar Agustillo was hired by respondent San Miguel
Corporation (SMC) at its Mandaue Brewery in Cebu. Initially, he was designated as safety clerk
with permanent status. In 1982, he was promoted to the position of administrative secretary of
the Engineering Department. Sometime in August 1991, he was transferred to the company's
Plant Director's Office-Quality Improvement Team (PDO-QIT). In February 1992, Agustillo
was informed that 584 employees, including him, would be retrenched due to the modernization
program of the company which will automate the processes of brewing, bottling and auxiliary
services. Agustillo was told that his services would be terminated. Agustillo then filed before the
Executive Labor Arbiter a complaint against SMC for illegal dismissal and payment of
separation pay, attorney's fees, and damages. The ELA dismissed the complaint and ruled in
favor of SMC because Agustillo's separation from employment was due to the installation of
labor saving devices and machineries (Article 283, LC) pursuant to the employer's modernization
program. Agustillo contends that he was illegally dismissed and that his transfer from the
Engineering Department to the PDO-QIT amounted to a constructive dismissal.
ISSUE: Was Edgar Agustillo illegally dismissed by SMC?
DECISION: NO. Agustillo's employment was terminated on the ground of the installation of
labor saving devices and machineries pursuant to the employer's reorganizational and expansion
program. The law in this regard allows such a state of change. Article 283 of the Labor Code
allows the reduction of personnel with the installation of labor saving devices.
Magnolia Dairy Products Corporation vs. NLRC and Jenny Calibo, G.R. No. 114952,
January 29, 1996
FACTS: Petitioner Magnolia Dairy Products Corporation, a division of San Miguel Corporation
(SMC), entered into a contract of service with Skillpower, Inc., which is engaged in the business
of offering and providing manpower services to the public. In 1983, Skillpower, Inc., assigned
Jenny A. Calibo to petitioners Tetra Paster Division. She was tasked with the removal,
replacement and disposal of damaged goods and re-pasting of the dilapidated cartons. When
Magnolias contract with Skillpower expired, Calibo applied with Lippercon Manpower
Services. In July 1987, Lippercon assigned her to Magnolias Tetra Paster Division as a
cleaning aide. In December 1987, Calibo was terminated from service due to Magnolias
installation of automated machines. Two years later, Calibo instituted a complaint for illegal
dismissal against Magnolia. Magnolia averred that the dismissal was prompted by the installation
of labor saving devices - an authorized cause for dismissal under the Labor Code. The Labor
Arbiter ruled that the installation of labor saving devices was a valid ground for the termination
of Calibos employment. Meanwhile, NLRC modified the decision by directing Calibos
reinstatement and payment of backwages not exceeding three (3) years. Magnolia asseverates
that Calibo was not illegally dismissed since the termination of her employment was due to a
cause expressly authorized by the Labor Code and the absence of notice did not make it so.
Petitioner asserts its claim that Calibo is only entitled to an indemnity of P1000.00, but not
backwages.
ISSUE:
1. Was Calibos termination illegal?
2. Did Magnolia failed to comply with the 30-day prior notice rule?
3. Was the NLRCs grant of backwages and order of reinstatement tenable?
DECISION: NO. The law authorizes an employer, like Magnolia, to terminate the employment
of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices. The installation of these devices
is a management prerogative, and the courts will not interfere with its exercise in the absence
of abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or maliciousness on the part of management, as in this case.
However, Magnolia failed to comply with the required written notice to the employee and to the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least one month before the intended date of
termination, which is required under Article 283 of the Labor Code. This procedure enables an
employee to contest the reality or good faith character of the asserted ground for the termination
of his services before the DOLE. The failure of petitioner to serve the written notice to private
respondent and to the DOLE, however, does not ipso facto make Calibos termination from
service illegal so as to entitle her to reinstatement and payment of backwages.
Moreover, the grant of backwages and order of reinstatement by the NLRC was not proper
because it is proper only for an illegally dismissed employee which is obviously not the situation
in this case. The appropriate award is separation pay pursuant to Article 283 of the Labor Code
which explicitly provides that an employee removed from service due to the installation of labor
saving devices is entitled to separation pay.
REDUNDANCY; CONCEPT
Redundancy in an employers personnel force does not necessarily or even ordinarily refers to
duplication of work. That no other person was holding the same position that private respondent
held prior to the termination of his services, does not show that his position had not become
redundant. Indeed, in any well organized business enterprise, it would be surprising to find
duplication of work and two (2) or more people doing the work of one person. We believe that
redundancy, for purposes of the Labor Code, exists where the services of an employee are in
excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. Succinctly
put, 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, decrease in volume of
business, or dropping of a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or
undertaken by the enterprise. The characterization of an employees services as no longer
necessary or sustainable, and therefore, properly terminable, is an exercise of business judgment
on the part of the employer, and that the wisdom or soundness of such characterization or
decision is not subject to discretionary review. However, such characterization may be rejected
if the same is found to be in violation of law or is arbitrary or malicious.
CASES:
Wiltshire File Co., vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 82249 February 7, 1991
FACTS: Private respondent Vicente Ong was the Sales Manager of petitioner Wiltshire File
Co., Inc. (Wiltshire) from 1981 to 1985. In 1985, upon Ongs return from a trip abroad, he was
informed thru a letter which formally informed him that his services were being terminated upon
the ground of redundancy. Ong filed a complaint for illegal dismissal alleging that his position
could not possibly be redundant because nobody in the company was then performing the same
duties, but only him. Wiltshire contends that Ongs dismissal was justified because the company
had been incurring business losses beginning 1984 and that it was compelled to reduce the size
of its personnel force. Hence, Ongs position as Sales Manager of the company became
redundant. The Labor Arbiter declared the termination of Ongs services as illegal and ordered
Wiltshire to pay Ong backwages, unpaid salaries and other benefits. NLRC affirmed the decision
of the Labor Arbiter on the reason that the supposed duplication of work of Ong and Mr. Deliva,
the Vice-President is absent that would justify redundancy. Wiltshire contends that redundancy as
a cause for termination does not necessarily mean duplication of work but a situation where
the services of an employee are in excess of what is demanded by the needs of an undertaking.
DECISION: NO. Wiltshire had serious financial difficulties before, during and after the
termination of the services of Ong, which resulted to the latters retrenchment. While Wiltshires
termination letter used the word "redundant" as ground for Ongs termination, that letter also
referred to the company having "incurred financial losses which compelled it to resort to
retrenchment to prevent further losses". In effect, the letter states that because of financial losses,
retrenchment was necessary, which retrenchment in turn resulted in the redundancy of Ongs
position. Redundancy in an employers personnel force does not necessarily or even ordinarily
refers to duplication of work. That no other person was holding the same position that private
respondent held prior to the termination of his services, does not show that his position had not
become redundant. Redundancy, for purposes of the Labor Code, exists where the services of an
employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the
enterprise.
Coats Manila Bay vs. Ortega, G.R. No. 172628, February 13, 2009
FACTS: Respondents Purita Ortega and Marina Montero were both employed by Coats Manila
Bay as Clerk Analysts in the Industrial Engineering Department. In 2000, Coats Manila Bay
announced that a redundancy plan would be implemented to prevent further losses. In fact,
respondents were notified that they would be subject to redundancy. As a result of this
redundancy program, 135 employees were terminated, including respondents. Respondents were
notified that they would be subject to redundancy and that they never objected thereto. Coats
Manila Bay also filed with the Department of Labor and Employment its Establishment
Termination Report, indicating that it was terminating 135 of its employees, including
respondents, on the ground of redundancy. Respondents received their respective separation
payments. In the meantime, 11 of the terminated employees were rehired by Coats Manila Bay to
different positions but with lower salaries. As such, respondents filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal with the NLRC against Coats Manila Bay. Coats Manila Bay claimed that they had the
management prerogative to implement a redundancy program as per Article 283 of the Labor
Code. Coats Manila Bay also asserts that it implemented reasonable criteria in selecting
employees to be retrenched, hence, not discriminatory. Moreover, the decision to dismiss
respondents was reached after consultations with the Union. On the other hand, respondents
contend that Coats Manila Bay cannot invoke redundancy since there was no showing that the
functions of respondents are duplicitous or superfluous. They also assert that Coats Manila Bay
failed to show that it was suffering from a serious downturn in business that would warrant
redundancy.
ISSUE:
1. Was the redundancy program terminating the respondents proper?
2. Is the employer required to show that it was suffering from business losses before he can
terminate an employee on the ground of redundancy?
DECISION: YES. Coats Manila Bay employed fair and reasonable criteria in choosing which
positions to declare redundant, which was based on performance, absenteeism, record of
disciplinary action, efficiency, work attitude, and above all, seniority. Moreover, the decision to
dismiss respondents was reached after consultations with the Union considering that there was
duplicity of functions of clerk analysts in the Industrial Engineering Section and finishing
production clerks in the Operations Department. Coats Manila Bay and the Union had exercised
business judgment in choosing who should be re-employed. Absent any showing of arbitrariness
or bad faith, the Court will not interfere with their decision.
NO. Coats Manila Bay need not show that it was suffering from a serious downturn in business
because the ground of redundancy does not require the exhibition of proof of losses or imminent
losses. In fact, it is only retrenchment which requires proof of losses or possible losses as
justification for termination of employment.
Asufrin vs. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 156658, March 10, 2004
FACTS: Coca Cola Plant, then a department of respondent San Miguel Beer Corporation
(SMC), hired Bonifacio Asufrin as a utility/miscellaneous worker in 1972. In 1973, he became
a regular employee paid on daily basis as a Forklift Operator. By 1981, he became a monthly
paid employee promoted as Stock Clerk. Sometime in 1984, the sales office and operations at
the Sum-ag Sales Office were reorganized. Several positions were abolished including Asufrins
position as Stock Clerk. After reviewing his qualifications, he was designated warehouse
checker at the Sum-ag Sales Office. In 1996, respondent SMC implemented a new marketing
system known as the pre-selling scheme at the Sum-ag Beer Sales Office. As a consequence,
all positions of route sales and warehouse personnel were declared redundant, including
Asufrins position as warehouse checker. Asufrin thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with
the NLRC but was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter for lack of merit. When it reached the Court of
Appeals, it affirmed the finding of the Labor Arbiter that the position of Asufrin became
redundant at the Sum-ag Sales Offices.
ISSUE: Was the dismissal of Asufrin based on a just and authorized cause?
DECISION: NO. SMC failed to produce adequate proof of such redundancy to justify the
dismissal of the affected employees. It is not enough for a company to merely declare that it has
become overmanned. In selecting employees to be dismissed, a fair and reasonable criterion
must be used, such as but not limited to (a) less preferred status, e.g. temporary employee; (b)
efficiency; and (c) seniority. In the case at bar, no criterion whatsoever was adopted by SMC in
dismissing petitioner. Furthermore, SMC has not shown how the cessation of operations of the
Sum-ag Sales Office contributed to the ways and means of improving effectiveness of the
organization with the end in view of efficiency and cutting distribution overhead and other
related costs. SMC, thus, clearly resorted to sweeping generalizations in dismissing Asufrin.
Retrenchment on the ground of serious business losses is allowed subject to the conditions that
(1) the losses expected should be substantial and not merely de minimis in extent; (2) the
substantial losses apprehended must be reasonably imminent as such imminence can be
perceived objectively in good faith by the employer; (3) retrenchment must be reasonably
necessary and likely to effectively prevent the expected losses; and (4) the alleged losses, if
already realized and the expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled, must be proven by
sufficient and convincing evidence.
While retrenchment and closure of a business establishment or undertaking are often used
interchangeably and are interrelated, they are actually two separate and independent authorized
causes for termination of employment.
Retrenchment is the reduction of personnel for the purpose of cutting down on costs of
operations in terms of salaries and wages resorted to by an employer because of losses in
operation of a business occasioned by lack of work and considerable reduction in the volume of
business.
Closure of a business or undertaking due to business losses is the reversal of fortune of the
employer whereby there is a complete cessation of business operations to prevent further
financial drain upon an employer who cannot pay anymore his employees since business has
already stopped.
While the Labor Code provides for the payment of separation package in case of retrenchment to
prevent losses, it does not obligate the employer for the payment thereof if there is closure of
business due to serious losses.
Alabang Country Club vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 157611, August 9, 2005
FACTS: Petitioner Alabang Country Club Inc. (ACCI) operates and maintains a country club
and various sports and recreational facilities for the exclusive use of its members. A financial
statement report by an independent external auditor, SGV & Co., showed that the ACCI's Food
and Beverage Department (F & B Department) had been gaining profits. However, when the
internal auditor of the company conducted its own financial statement report of the department, it
deducted from the department's annual income the undistributed operating costs and expenses.
Consequently, the report showed that the F & B Department had been incurring substantial losses
in the aggregate amount of P8,727,135.00. As a result, the management decided to cease from
operating the F & B Department and to open the same to La Tasca Restaurant which would be
willing to operate its own food and beverage business within the club. ACCI sent the employees
of the F & B Department individual letters informing them that their services were being
terminated in view of serious business losses. The Alabang Country Club Independent
Employees Union and employees filed before the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal. They
argued that the F & B Division had been gaining profits as shown by the financial statement
prepared by SGV & Co. Moreover, compliance with the standards for losses to justify their
retrenchment was not met by ACCI. On the other hand, ACCI averred that it may exercise
management prerogatives to adopt a cost-saving and cost-consciousness program and improve
efficiency in its operations and prevent losses. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and
found that ACCI was justified in exercising its inherent prerogative to retrench its workers to
prevent further losses.
ISSUE: Were the F & B Department employees validly dismissed on the ground of
retrenchment?
DECISION: NO. The F & B Department employees were not terminated due to retrenchment
to prevent losses since ACCI failed to prove that the closure of its F & B Department was due to
substantial losses. The report submitted by the internal auditor of ACCI to prove its alleged
losses, is self-serving and falls short of the stringent requirement of the law that the employer
proves its allegation of substantial losses. Nevertheless, the employees were validly dismissed on
the ground of closure or cessation of an undertaking not due to serious business losses or
financial reverses under Article 283 of the Labor Code. While ACCI did not sufficiently
establish substantial losses to justify closure of its F & B Department on the ground of
retrenchment due to serious losses, there is basis for its claim that the continued maintenance of
said department had become more expensive through the years. Besides, when petitioner decided
to cease operating its F & B Department and open the same to a concessionaire, it did not reduce
the number of personnel assigned thereat. It terminated the employment of all personnel assigned
at the department.
For retrenchment due to serious business losses to be regarded as an authorized cause for
terminating employees, it must be proven that the losses incurred are substantial and actual or
reasonably imminent; that the same increased through a period of time; and that the condition of
the company is not likely to improve in the near future. In fine, management's exercise of its
prerogative to close a section, branch, department, plant or shop will be upheld as long as it is
done in good faith to advance the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or
circumventing the rights of employees under the law or a valid agreement.
The employer need only comply with the following requirements for a valid cessation of
business operations. (a) service of a written notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least one
month before the intended date thereof; (b) the cessation of or withdrawal from business
operations must be bona fide in character and (c) payment of termination pay equivalent to at
least one-half month pay for each year of service, or one month pay, whichever is higher.
Mac Adams Union vs. Mac Adams, G.R. No. 141615, October 24, 2003
ISSUE: Was the closure of private respondents' business was done in good faith and for
legitimate business reasons?
DECISION: YES. There was a legitimate and bona fide closure and cessation of business by
MAME and GBS. Private respondents complied with the requirements for a valid cessation of
business operations. MAME's and GBS employees were adequately informed at least one month
prior to the date of the intended business closure and a written notice to the Regional Director of
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) was filed by private respondents. Moreover,
private respondents had already given the separation pay to all their regular employees except to
those employees who refused to accept their separation pay.
The employer need only comply with the following requirements for a valid cessation of
business operations. (a) service of a written notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least one
month before the intended date thereof; (b) the cessation of or withdrawal from business
operations must be bona fide in character and (c) payment of termination pay equivalent to at
least one-half month pay for each year of service, or one month pay, whichever is higher.
An unqualified award of backwages means that the employee is paid at the wage rate at the
time of his dismissal. The base figure to be used in the computation of backwages is pegged
at the wage rate at the time of the employees dismissal, inclusive of regular allowances that
the employee had been receiving such as the emergency living allowances and the 13th month
pay mandated under the law.
Wenphil Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 80587, 8 February 1989, 170 SCRA 69
Dismissal of an employee must be for a just and authorized cause and after due process.Thus
in the present case, where the private respondent, who appears to be of violent temper, caused
trouble during office hours and even defied his superiors as they tried to pacify him, should not
be rewarded with reemployment and back wages. Under the circumstances, the dismissal of the
private respondent for just cause should be maintained. He has no right to return to his former
employment. However, the petitioner must nevertheless be held to account for failure to extend
to private respondent his right to an investigation before causing his dismissal. The dismissal of
an employee must be for just or authorized cause and after due process. Petitioner failed to give
a formal notice and conduct an investigation as required by law before dismissing petitioner from
employment. Thus, petitioner must indemnify the private respondent the amount of P1000.00.
The failure of petitioner to give private respondent the benefit of a hearing before he was
dismissed constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to due process of law and equal
protection of the laws.
Serrano v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117040, 27 January 2000, 323 SCRA 445
Termination of petitioners services was for an authorized cause, i.e., redundancy. Pursuant to
Article 283 of the Labor Code, petitioner should be given separation pay at the rate of one month
pay for every year of service.
Art. 283 also provides that to terminate the employment of an employee for any of the authorized
causes the employer must serve a written notice on the workers and the Department of Labor
and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In the case at bar,
petitioner was given a notice of termination on October 11, 1991. On the same day, his services
were terminated. He was thus denied his right to be given written notice before the termination
of his employment.
Where the dismissal of one employee is for a just and valid cause but he is not accorded his right
to due process, the dismissal shall be upheld but the employer must be sanctioned for non-
compliance with the requirements of due process.
Employers failure to comply with the notice requirement does not constitute a denial of due
process but a mere failure to observe a procedure for the termination of employment which
makes the termination of employment merely ineffectual.
Whether the employee is reinstated or only granted separation pay, he should be paid full
backwages if he has been laid off without written notice at least 30 days in advance.
Failure to observe due process in a dismissal for just or authorized cause does not invalidate the
dismissal but makes the employer liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of
due process.
Employees committed a grave offense, i.e., abandonment, which is a form of a neglect of duty
which, in turn, is one of the just causes enumerated under Article 282 of the Labor Code. In said
case, we upheld the validity of the dismissal despite noncompliance with the notice requirement
of the Labor Code. However, we required the employer Riviera Home Improvements to pay the
dismissed employees the amount of P30000.00 representing nominal damages for non-
compliance with statutory due process.
Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code,
the employer must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be
heard if requested by the employee before terminating the employment, and (2) if the dismissal is
based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284, the employer must give the employee
and the Department of Labor and Employment written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of
his separation; Failure to observe due process in a dismissal for just or authorized cause does
not invalidate the dismissal but makes the employer liable for non-compliance with the
procedural requirements of due process.
Accordingly, it is wise to hold that: (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282
but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon
him should be tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act
imputable to the employee; and (2) if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article
283 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer
because the dismissal process was initiated by the employers exercise of his management
prerogative.
In this case, the dismissal due to retrenchment (JAKA was suffering from serious business losses
at the time it terminated respondents employment), which is one of the authorized causes under
Article 283 of the same Code, was effected without JAKA complying with the requirement under
Article 283 of the Labor Code regarding the service of a written notice upon the employees and
the Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date of
termination. Considering the factual circumstances in the instant case and the above
ratiocination, we, therefore, deem it proper to fix the indemnity at P50000.00.
FUERTE was instructed to report at private respondents main office where he was
informed by the companys personnel manager that he would be transferred to its
Sucat plant due to his failure to meet his sales quota. FUERTE reported for work at
the Sucat plant; however, he protested his transfer, subsequently filing a complaint
for illegal termination.
In FUERTEs case, private respondent claims that the latter was demoted pursuant
to a company policy intended to foster competition among its employees. Under this
scheme, private respondents employees are required to comply with a monthly sales
quota. Should FUERTE fail to meet his quota for a certain number of consecutive
months, he will be demoted.
FUERTE decries his transfer as being violative of his security of tenure, the clear
implication being that he was constructively dismissed. We have held that an
employer acts well within its rights in transferring an employee as it sees fit
provided that there is no demotion in rank or diminution in pay. The two
circumstances are deemed badges of bad faith, and thus constitutive of constructive
dismissal.
It should be borne in mind, however, that the right to demote an employee also falls within
the category of management prerogatives.
In the case at bar, the petitioners failure to meet the sales quota assigned to each of them
constitute a just cause of their dismissal, regardless of the permanent or probationary
status of their employment. Failure to observe prescribed standards of work or to fulfill
reasonable work assignments due to inefficiency may constitute just cause for dismissal.
He averred that since the reason for his detention for rape was non-
existent, the termination of his employment was illegal. For its part,
the SEMC averred that Javiers prolonged absences caused irreparable damages to
its orderly operation; he had to be replaced so that the continuity and flow of
production would not be jeopardized. It could not afford to wait for Javiers
indefinite return from detention.
CA held that Javier could not be terminated on the ground of commission of a crime,
as when he was acquitted of the rape charges, the second ground relied upon by the
SEMC ceased to have factual basis. Hence, despite the fact that Javier was allegedly
afforded the opportunity to explain his side, the same was unnecessary since, in the
first place, there was no just or authorized cause for the dismissal.
NO reinstatement:
1. When there is closure of business
2. Strained relations
3. Supervening events;
4. Employee chooses to be awarded separation pay