SAN SAN MIGU MIGUEL EL CORP CORPOR ORA ATION TION,, Peti Petiti tion oner er vs. vs. CARO CAROLI LINE NE C. DEL DEL RO ROSA SARI RIO, O, Respondent. G.R. Nos. 1681! " 1686#$ De%e&'er 1$, (##) *+%ts On April 17, 2000, respondent was employed by petitioner as key account specialist. Petitioner informed respondent that her probationary employment will be severed at the close of the business hours of arch 12, 2001. After respondent was refused entry to petitioner!s premises. "espo espon nden dent #led #led a compl omplai ain nt a$ai a$ain nst peti petiti tion oner er for for ille ille$ $al dism dismis issa sall and unde underp rpay ayme ment nt%n %non on&p &pay ayme ment nt of mone moneta tary ry bene bene#t #ts. s. "espo espond nden entt alle alle$e $ed d that that petitioner fei$ned an e'cess in manpower because after her dismissal, it hired new recruits and re&employed two of her batch mates. On the other hand, petitioner claimed that respondent was a probationary employee whose services were terminated as a result of the e'cess manpower that could no lon$er be accommodated by the company. "espondent was alle$edly employed as a temporary reliever of Patrick (enen, an account specialist, who met an accident. Anticipatin$ an increase in sales volume, petitioner hired respondent as an account specialist on a probationary status and was assi$ned at petitioner!s )reater anila Area Area&* &*ey ey Ac Acco coun unts ts )rou )roup p +)A +)A&* &*A) A) -eer -eer (ale (ales s )rou )roup. p. owe oweve ver, r, peti petiti tion oner er!s !s e'pected business $rowth did not materiali/e, hence, it reor$ani/ed the )A&*A), and created the entrali/ed *ey Accounts )roup. his restructurin$ led to an initial e'cess of 3 re$ular employees, who were redeployed to other positions, includin$ the one occupied by respondent.
De%isions LA4 de%de%-+r +red ed resp respon onde dent nt + re/ re/-+ -+r r e&pe&p-o0 o0ee ee beca becaus use e her her empl employ oyme ment nt e'ceeded si' months and holdin$ that she was ille$ally dismissed, as there was no autho authori/ ri/ed ed cause cause to termin terminate ate her employ employmen ment. t. 5t furthe furtherr ruled ruled that that petiti petitione oner!s r!s failure to rebut respondent!s claim that it hired additional employees after she was dismissed dismissed belie the company!s company!s alle$ed alle$ed redundancy redundancy. 5t render rendered ed the dismissal dismissal of reinst+te& te&ent ent it2 it2 3/-3/-- '+%4+ '+%4+es es55 comp compla lain inan antt as ille ille$a $all and and orde orderi rin$ n$ her her reinst+ o-id+0 P+0, P+0, Servi%e In%entive Le+ve, 1$t2 Mont2 P+0 P+0, &or+- +nd e7e&p-+r0 d+&+es. On appeal by petitioner to the 6"
NLRC4 &odied the decision of A holdin$ that respondent is a re$ular employee whose termination from employment was valid but ine8ectual for petitioner!s failure to comply with the 90&day notice to the employee and the :O;. hus, respondent ( is hereby ordered to pay complainant sep+r+tion p+0 e9/iv+-ent to 2er one: &ont2 &ont2 p+0 per 0e+r o3 servi% servi%e e reckoned from her #rst day of employment and award for full backwa$es shall be accordin$ly ad
award award for unpaid unpaid servic service e incent incentive ive leave leave and and 19th 19th month month pay shall be reduc reduced ed respectively. respectively. Co&p-+in+nt;s ++rd 3or 2o-id+0 p+0 +nd &or+- +nd e7e&p-+r0 d+&+es is
CA 5n A&).". (P 6o. =0=1 & $ranted the respondent!s petition and reinstated with modi#c modi#cati ation on the abor abor Arbite Arbiter!s r!s decisi decision on #ndin$ #ndin$ her to be an ille$a ille$ally lly dis dismis missed sed re$ular employee, but deleted the award for holiday pay for lack of basis. he A noted that petitioner $ave no satisfactory e'planation for the hirin$ of employees after respondent!s termination and the absence of company criteria in determinin$ who amon$ the employees will be dismissed, the dismissal is ille$al and orderin$ her reinstatement reinstatement with full backwa$es, moral and e'emplary dama$es. 5n A&).". (P 6o. =972> ? +(an i$uel orp the instant petition is dismissed. ence, petitioner instituted these two separate petitions for review prayin$ that the @uestioned decisions and resolutions of the ourt of Appeals in A&).". (P 6o. =0=1 and and A&) A&)." .".. (P 6o. 6o. =9 =972 72> > be set set asid aside e and and that that respo espond nden ent! t!s s comp compla lain intt be dismissed.
Iss/es 1. whether or not respondent is a re$ular employee of petitioner 2. whether or not respondent was ille$ally dismissed 9. if so, whether or not respondent is entitled to any monetary bene#t. R/-in4 1. 5n termin terminati ation on cases, cases, like like the prese present nt contr controve oversy rsy,, the burden burden of provi provin$ n$ the circumstances that would
2. "edundancy, for purposes of the abor ode, e'ists where the services of an employee are in e'cess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual re@uirements of the enterprise. (uccinctly put, a position is redundant where it is superBuous, and superBuity of a position or positions may be the outcome of o f a number of factors, such as overhirin$ of workers, decreased volume of business, or droppin$ of a particular prod produc uctt line line or serv servic ice e acti activi vity ty prev previo ious usly ly manu manufa fact ctur ured ed or unde undert rtak aken en by the the enterprise. 5n the case at bar, petitioner presented an aCdavit of its (ales ana$er and a memorandum of the company both to the e8ect that there is a need to redep edeploy loy its its re$ul e$ular ar empl employ oyee ees s and and ter termina minate te the the empl employ oyme ment nt of temp tempor orar ary y employees, in view of an e'cess in manpower. hese documents, however, do not satisfy the re@uirement of substantial evidence that a reasonable mind mi$ht accept as ade@uate to support a conclusion. 5n bala balanc ncin in$ $ the the inte interrest est betw betwee een n labo laborr and and capi capita tal, l, the the prud pruden entt recour ecourse se in termination cases is to safe$uard the pri/ed security of tenure of employees and to re@uire employers to present the best evidence obtainable, especially so because in most cases, the documents or proof needed to resolve the validity of the termination, are in the possession of employers. A contrary rulin$ would encoura$e employers to prev preven entt the the re$ul e$ular ari/ i/at atio ion n of an empl employ oyee ee by simp simply ly invo invoki kin$ n$ a fei$ fei$ne ned d or unsubstantiated redundancy pro$ram. )rantin$ that petitioner was able to substantiate the validity of its reor$ani/ation or restr restruct ucturi urin$, n$, it nevert neverthel heless ess,, failed failed to e8ect e8ect a fair fair and reaso reasonab nable le criter criterion ion in dismis dis missin sin$ $ respo responde ndent. nt. he criter criteria ia in implem implement entin$ in$ a redun redundan dancy cy are4 are4 +a less less preferred status, e.$. temporary employee +b eCciency and +c seniority. 5n dismissin$ respondent, petitioner averred that in choosin$ the employee to be retained retained and to be placed in the limited available available positions, it had to $ive priority priority to the re$ular employees, over petitioner who is only a probationary employee. Dhat furthe furtherr milita militated ted a$ains a$ainstt the alle$e alle$ed d redun redundan dancy cy advanc advanced ed by petiti petitione onerr is their their failure to refute respondent!s assertion that after her dismissal, it hired new recruits and re&employed two of her batch mates. Other than the lame e'cuse that it is respondent who has the burden of provin$ the same, it presented no proof to fortify its denial. 9. A"5; 273. (ecurity of tenure. 5n cases of re$ular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee e'cept for a
Considerin t2+t respondent +s i--e+--0 dis&issed, s2e is entit-ed not on-0 to reinst+te&ent '/t +-so to p+0&ent o3 3/-- '+%4+es, %o&p/ted 3ro& t2e ti&e 2er %o&pens+tion +s +%t/+--0 it22e-d 3ro& 2er on M+r%2 1$, (##1, /p to 2er +%t/+- reinst+te&ent. As + re/-+r e&p-o0ee o3 petitioner 3ro&
t2e d+te o3 2er e&p-o0&ent on Apri- 1>, (###, s2e is -i4eise entit-ed to ot2e ot 2er r 'ene 'enet ts, s, i.e. i.e.,, serv servi% i%e e in%e in%ent ntiv ive e -e+v -e+ve e p+0 p+0 +nd +nd 1$t2 1$t2 &o &ont nt2 2 p+0 p+0 %o&p/ted 3ro& s/%2 d+te +-so /p to 2er +%t/+- reinst+te&ent. Respondent is not, 2oever, entit-ed to 2o-id+0 p+0 'e%+/se t2e re%ords reve+- t2+t s2e is + &ont2-0 p+id re/-+r e&p-o0ee. Ender (ection 2, "ule 5F, -ook 555 of the Omnibus "ules 5mplementin$ the abor ode, employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of workin$ days therein, shall be presumed to be paid for all the days in the month whether worked or not. ence, the ourt of Appeals correctly deleted said award.
