Photo from Pexels | Sora Shimazaki
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Reinstatement presupposes that the previous position from which the employee has been removed is still in existence or there is an unfilled position of a nature, more or less, similar to the one previously occupied by said employee.
Respondents Armando G. Romano, Jay A. Cabrera, and Moises V. Sarmiento claimed that they work as brine men at Genuino Ice Company, Inc.’s ice plant in Turbina, Calamba, Laguna branch. Romano was hired through the man power agency, Vicar General Contractor and Management Services, while Cabrera and Sarmiento were hired through L.C. Moreno General Contractor and Management Services.
Respondents averred that sometime in September 2004, each worker does not work for fifteen (15) days for a period of nintey (90) days. When Romano reported back to work on June 25, 2005 after his fifteen (15) days forced leave, he was told that his employment was already terminated. Cabrera and Sarmiento were dismissed from work on July 10, 2005. Thus, on August 3, 2005, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for separation pay against Genuino Ice and Vicar before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
Genuino Ice claimed that respondents charged the wrong party as they were never its employees but of petitioner Genuino Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, its affiliate company. Thus, respondents amended their complaint by impleading the petitioner, including the relief of reinstatement, and asking for attorney’s fees.
In his Decision, the Labor Arbiter held that respondents were regular employees of petitioner since they were performing functions that were necessary and desirable to the operations of the ice plant.
On appeal before the NLRC, petitioner stressed that respondents never questioned its prerogative to retrench them due to partial closure of its plant and reduction of its personnel, but only questioned the propriety of their termination for non-compliance with the notice requirement laid down in Article 298 of the Labor Code.
Meanwhile, in compliance with the reinstatement aspect of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, petitioner served upon the respondents a Notice of Compliance informing them that they could no longer be reinstated to their former posts at its ice plant in Turbina, due to the closure
of its block ice production facilities. Thus, they were directed to report at petitioner’s main office
within five (5) days from receipt of the said notice of compliance for their reinstatement/placement at petitioner’s ice plant in Navotas.
When respondents inquired on their work assignments on March 8 and 12, 2007, they were told that there were still no available work assignments for them, prompting them to file a motion for the issuance of a writ of partial execution ordering their reinstatement in the payroll effective March 6, 2007.
The Labor Arbiter granted the motion and issued a writ of partial execution. Since the writ of partial execution was returned unsatisfied, petitioner moved for the issuance of an alias writ of partial execution reiterating their prayer to be reinstated in the payroll. After the petitioner filed its opposition to the motion, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order granting the issuance of an alias writ of partial execution. Petitioner appealed the Order and prayed that the same be lifted and set aside pending resolution of the main case on appeal.
On November 29, 2007, the NLRC rendered its Decision finding that the Labor Arbiter did
not err in holding petitioner and Vicar guilty of illegal dismissal, and ordering respondents’
reinstatement with full backwages. The NLRC held that they could not justify respondents’ dismissal on the ground of retrenchment considering that petitioner and Vicar totally disregarded the requirements laid down in Article 298 of the Labor Code and failed to adduce documentary proof, like an audited financial statement, to substantiate their claim.
Petitioner sought recourse before the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Certiorari alleging
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. The CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in deciding the case as it did and denied the petition. It held that while retrenchment is one of the recognized authorized causes for the dismissal of an employee, petitioner failed to discharge its burden of proving that respondents’ retrenchment was valid for the reason that petitioner not only failed to notify them and the DOLE of the retrenchment, it also failed to prove that it was losing financially. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred and committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC’s Decision in not ruling for the retrenchment of respondents without proper notice and due process, that they are not entitled to reinstatement and payment of backwages, but to nominal damages.
The Supreme Court Decides
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition and affirmed with modification the CA’s decision and resolution in that, Genuino Ice is adjudged solidarily liable with petitioner and Vicar
to pay the monetary claims due to the respondents as follows:
- Backwages computed from June 25, 2005 with respect to Romano, and July 10, 2005 with respect to Cabrera and Sarmiento, the time they were illegally dismissed, until the finality of the Decision; and
- In lieu of reinstatement, separation pay computed from respondents’ first day of employment until the finality of the Decision, at the rate of one (1) month pay per year of service.
Respondents were illegally dismissed from employment, retrenchment not being duly proved. To justify retrenchment, petitioner claims serious business losses leading to the shutdown of its block ice plant facilities to which respondents belong. There is, however, dearth of evidence
showing that the petitioner was indeed suffering from business losses as it staunchly claimed. Its failure to prove these losses necessarily means that respondents’ dismissal was not justified.
In addition, records would bear out, as in fact petitioner never denied, that it failed to satisfy the notice requirement under Article 298 of the Labor Code. Neither was the required separation pay to effect a valid retrenchment given to respondents. The Court upheld the ruling of
the CA that there was absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it upheld the ruling of Labor Arbiter finding the respondents to have been illegally dismissed by petitioner.
Since respondents’ termination was illegal, they are entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to their full backwages pursuant to Article 294 of the Labor Code. However, reinstatement presupposes that the previous position from which the employee has been removed is still in existence or there is an unfilled position of a nature, more or less, similar to the one previously occupied by said employee. Since it has been 14 years since the time respondents were removed from work, it is unlikely that the former positions held by them or their equivalent are still existing or are presently unoccupied. Thus, making their reinstatement no longer viable.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.