Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. PLDT Company Inc.

GR No. 190389, April 19, 2017

FACTS:

On June 27, 2002, the labor organization Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas

(MKP), which represented the employees of PLDT, filed a notice of strike with the NCMB. MKP
charged PLDT with unfair labor practice for transferring several employees of its Provisioning
Support Division to Bicutan, Taguig, in violation of the duty to bargain collectively in good faith.
This was due to the redeployment measures done by PLDT to accommodate employees from the
abolition of certain divisions as part of its redundancy program it implemented. PLDT declared
only 323 employees as redundant as it was able to redeploy 180 of the 503 affected employees
to other positions.

On October 28, 2005, the NLRC dismissed MKP’s charges of unfair labor practices
against PLDT ruling that PLDT’s redundancy program in 2002 was valid and did not constitute
unfair legal practice. The redundancy program was due to the decline of subscribers for long
distance calls and to fixed line services produced by technological advances in the
communications industry. The NLRC ruled that the termination of employment of PLDT’s
employees due to redundancy was legal.

The CA affirmed the NLRC because PLDT was transparent and forthright in its
implementation of the redundancy program. PLDT also successfully redeployed 180 of the 503
affected employees to other positions.

ISSUE:

Did PLDT commit unfair labor practice when it implemented its redundancy program?

RULING: NO.

Redundancy is one of the authorized causes for the termination of employment provided
for in Article 298 of the Labor Code. Redundancy exists when the services of an employee are in
excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise.

While a declaration of redundancy is ultimately a management decision in exercising its

business judgment, and the employer is not obligated to keep in its payroll more employees than
are needed for its day to-day operations, management must not violate the law nor declare
redundancy without sufficient basis.

PLDT’s declaration of redundancy was backed by substantial evidence showing a

consistent decline for operator-assisted calls for both local and international calls because of
cheaper alternatives like direct dialing services, and the growth of wireless communication.
Redundancy is ultimately a management prerogative, and the wisdom or soundness of such
business judgment is not subject to discretionary review by labor tribunals or even this Court, as
long as the law was followed and malicious or arbitrary action was not shown. Since the
redundancy program of PLDT was valid, then there was no unfair labor practice committed by it.