Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

144 recent jurisprudence

The determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship


by the DOLE must be respected.The expanded visitorial and enforcement
power of the DOLE granted by RA 7730 would be rendered nugatory if the
alleged employer could, by the simple expedient of disputing the employer-
employee relationship, force the referral of the matter to the NLRC.The Court
issued the declaration that at least aprima facieshowing of the absence of an
employer-employee relationship be made to oust the DOLE of jurisdiction.But
it is precisely the DOLE that will be faced with that evidence, and it is the DOLE
that will weigh it, to see if the same does successfully refute the existence of an
employer-employee relationship.

INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES /


MARILYN C. PASCUAL v. ROEL P. LOGARTA
G.R. No. 163657, 18 April 2012, THIRD DIVISION (Peralta, J.)

Proper notice to the DOLE within 30 days prior to the intended date of retrenchment
is necessary and must be complied with despite the fact that Logarta is an overseas Filipino
worker.

Petitioner International Management Services (IMS), owned by Marilyn


C. Pascual, deployed respondent Roel P. Logarta to work for Petrocon Arabia
Limited (Petrocon)in connection with services of Petrocon for the Saudi Arabian
Oil Company (Saudi Aramco).Logarta was employed as Piping Designer for
a period of two (2) years, with a monthly salary of eight hundred US Dollars
(US$800.00).

Due to the reduction of man-hours allotted for cross-country pipeline
projects, Petrocon was constrained to terminate some of its employees, including
Logarta. Petrocon sent Logarta a 30-day notice of termination, with payment of
all due benefits in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment
contract, including his ticket back to thePhilippines.

Before his departure, Logarta received his final paycheck from Petrocon
amounting SR7,488.57. Upon his return, Logarta filed a complaint with the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against IMS on the ground of
illegal dismissal. The NLRC ruled in favor of Logarta. After its motion for
reconsideration was denied, the matter was brought before the Court of Appeals
(CA), which dismissed the petition. The CA agreed that the reason for the

u s t l a w l a w r e v i e w, v o l l v i i , n o . 1 , n o v e m b e r 2 0 1 2
l a b or l aw 145

termination was valid but the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
was not given a copy of the 30-day notice of termination.

ISSUE:

Whether or not it is necessary to send the 30-day requirement notice to


DOLE prior to retrenchment of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs)

HELD:

Philippine Law recognizes retrenchment as a valid cause for the dismissal
of a migrant or overseas Filipino worker under Article 283 of the Labor Code,
which provided that the employer may also terminate the employment of any
employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchmentto
prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operations of the establishment or
undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions
of the said Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Department of
Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof.

Thus,retrenchment is a valid exercise of management prerogative subject
to the strict requirements set by jurisprudence, to wit:

(1)That the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent


business losses which, if already incurred, are not merelyde 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 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

u s t l a w l a w r e v i e w, v o l l v i i , n o . 1 , n o v e m b e r 2 0 1 2
146 recent jurisprudence

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.

As for the notice requirement, however, contrary to IMS contention,
proper notice to the DOLE within 30 days prior to the intended date of
retrenchment is necessary and must be complied with despite the fact that Logarta
is an overseas Filipino worker.In the present case, although Logarta was duly
notified of his termination by Petrocon 30 days before its effectivity, no allegation
or proof was advanced by IMS to establish that Petrocon ever sent a notice to the
DOLE 30 days before Logarta was terminated.Thus, this requirement of the law
was not complied with.

RE: APPLICATION FOR RETIREMENT OF JUDGE MOSLEMEN T.


MACARAMBON UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 910, AS AMENDED
BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946
A.M. No. 14061-RET, 19 June 2012, EN BANC (Brion, J.)

Resignation stems from the employees own intent and volition to resign and relinquish
his post. It absolutely cuts-off the employment relationship in general. Retirement, on the other
hand, takes effect by operation of law and the employment relationship endures for the purpose
of the grant of retirement benefits.

Judge Moslemen Macarambon was a judge of the Regional Trial Court


(RTC) for a period of 18 years, 1 month and 16 days. Before reaching the optional
retirement age of 60, Judge Macarambon was appointed as Commissioner of the
Commission on Election (COMELEC) by then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
(President Arroyo). Judge Macarambon served as COMELEC Commissioner for
less than a year and was subsequently appointed by President Arroyo as President/
CEO of the National Transmission Corporation. Thereafter, Judge Macarambon
resigned from the position when he failed to receive a reappointment from
President Benigno C. Aquino III.

In his letter, Judge Macarambon requested that he be allowed to retire


under Section 1 of Republic Act 910. Judge Macarambon asserted that Section
1 allows the payment of retirement benefits to a judge of the RTC who resigns
by reason of incapacity to discharge the duties of his office. Judge Macarambon
posited that his appointment as COMELEC Commissioner incapacitated him to
discharge his duties as an RTC Judge on account of his submission to the will of

u s t l a w l a w r e v i e w, v o l l v i i , n o . 1 , n o v e m b e r 2 0 1 2

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi