Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

134. HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES (HEPI) v.

SAMAHAN NG MGA
MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT-NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL AND
RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN)
G.R. No. 165756, June 5, 2009.

FACTS: HEPI’s hotel business suffered a slump due to local and international slowdown. An audited
financial report made by SGV & Co. indicated that the hotel suffered gross operating loss. It decided to cut
down cost by reducing the rank and file employees from 248 down to 150. The vacated positions were later
filled up with contractual personnel and agency employees. Union opposed the downsizing plan averring
that no evidence would support HEPI’s claim of heavy financial losses. Respondent union also argued that
it violates the CBA where it was agreed that it would include the manning and staffing for the 248 regular
rank and file employees. Despite the opposition from the union, HEPI declared certain positions redundant
and served notices of termination. Union filed a notice of strike based on ULP. Labor arbiter declared the
strike legal. NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter. CA reversed the NLRC. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: 1. Whether or not HEPIs downsizing scheme was valid?

2. Whether or not implementation of the downsizing scheme preclude HEPI from availing the services of
contractual and agency hire employees?

RULING: 1. YES. While it appears from the union audit that HEPI was still earning, if provisions for
hotel rehabilitation as well as replacement of and additions to the hotels furnishings and equipments are
included, which respondent Union failed to consider, the result is indeed a staggering deficit. Hence, the
downsizing scheme is justified on the ground of serious business losses. Some positions had to be declared
redundant to cut losses. In this context, what may technically be considered as redundancy may verily be
considered as a retrenchment measure. To substantiate its claim, petitioner presented a financial report
covering the years 2000 and 2001 submitted by the SGV & Co., an independent external auditing firm.

Our labor laws only allow retrenchment or downsizing as a valid exercise of management prerogative if all
other else fail. For a valid retrenchment, the following requisites must be complied with: (1) the
retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and such losses are proven; (2) written notice to the employees
and to the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; and (3) payment of
separation pay equivalent to one-month pay or at least one-half month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher.

In case of redundancy, the employer must prove that: (1) a written notice was served on both the employees
and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; (2) separation pay equivalent
to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, has been
paid; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and (4) adoption of fair and reasonable criteria
in ascertaining which positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished.

It is the employer who bears the onus of proving compliance with these requirements, retrenchment and
redundancy being in the nature of affirmative defenses. Otherwise, the dismissal is not justified.

2. NO. HEPI implemented the downsizing plan validly and in good faith in the exercise of its management
prerogative.

Jurisprudence is to the effect that an employer’s good faith in implementing a redundancy program is not
necessarily destroyed by availment of the services of an independent contractor to replace the services of
the terminated employees.