Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1995 > July 1995 Decisions > G.R. No. 112230 July 17, 1995 - NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 112230. July 17, 1995.]

NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NEMESIO T. IGNACIO, JR., Respondents.

E.B. Ramos & Associates for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for public Respondent.

Garcia, Gacal & Jacobo Law Office for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; ILLEGAL DISMISSAL; WHERE ALLEGATION OF RETRENCHMENT AND LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE NOT ESTABLISHED. — The Labor Arbiter found the evidence on the retrenchment "incomplete and unsatisfactory." The procedure for retrenchment was not complied with, and there was no evidence presented to establish a retrenchment program of the company. As held in Philippine School of business Administration (PSBA Manila) v. National Labor Relations Commission, business losses, as a just cause for retrenchment, must be proved, for they can be feigned. In retrenching employees, employers are called upon to analyze the implications of their decision so as not to jeopardize the livelihood of their (employees." Petitioner claims that private respondent was dismissed also because of inefficiency and loss of trust and confidence, the letter of termination only mentioned retrenchment as the ground for termination. Evidence shows that private respondent received several promotions since his employment and he was given bonuses for his collection efforts and a compensation adjustment for his excellent performance. All these negate petitioner’s claim that it had lost trust and confidence in private Respondent. In Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 217 SCRA 237 (1993), this Court emphasized: "Although loss of confidence is a valid cause to terminate an employee, it must nonetheless rest on an actual breach of duty committed by the employee and not on the employer’s caprices. The burden of proof rests upon the employer to establish that the dismissal is for cause in view of the security of tenure that employees enjoy under the constitution and the Labor Code. The failure of the employer to do so would mean that the dismissal is not justified. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; AWARD GRANTED BASED ON FACTUAL FINDINGS OF NLRC, RESPECTED. — The other awards granted by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by NLRC, such as the amount of backwages and allowances, accrued salary, accrued bonus and attorney’s fee due private respondent, involve the determination of factual issues that is best left to NLRC.


D E C I S I O N


QUIASON, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to set aside the Resolutions dated April 20, 1993 and August 26, 1993 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Case No. RAB-11-08-50299-91.

I


Private respondent was employed by petitioner on May 1, 1986. He was promoted to the position of Credit Sales Representative IV on April 16, 1991. However, on June 30, 1991, he was informed of the termination of his services in a letter which stated." . . that because of the dwindling collection in your area coupled with the adverse business condition now prevailing and affecting the company, your services will cease at the close of office hours of June 30, 1991" (Rollo, p. 49). The letter also stated that in the event petitioner could recover from its losses and private respondent’s services may be needed, his reemployment would be given priority.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Private respondent did not accept the separation pay offered him and instead filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salaries, overtime pay, premium pay for holiday and rest days, damages and attorney’s fees. In his decision, the Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal. He declared:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered.

"1. Declaring respondent guilty of illegal dismissal;

"2. Ordering respondent to reinstate complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges immediately upon receipt;

"3. Ordering respondent to pay complainant his full back wages and allowances from the time he was [illegally] terminated on July 19, 1991 up to this promulgation, in the amount of P42,446.50;

"4. Ordering respondent to pay complainant’s accrued salary in the amount of P3,691.00;

"5. Ordering respondent to pay complaint’s accrued bonus in the amount of P16,100.00;

"6. Ordering respondent to pay complainant moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00 and P10,000.00 respectively;

"7. Ordering respondent to pay complainant 10% at (sic) the total award as attorney’s fee."cralaw virtua1aw library

TOTAL AWARD P101,461.25

(Rollo, pp. 47-48).

Petitioner appeared said decision to NLRC.

The NLRC sustained the findings of the Labor Arbiter with the modification as to the award of moral and exemplary damages, which were deleted altogether. Instead of reinstatement and payment of back wages, NLRC awarded separation pay at the rate of one month pay for every year of service.

II


Petitioner claims that NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the findings of illegal dismissal of the Labor Arbiter.

The Labor Arbiter found the evidence on the retrenchment "incomplete and unsatisfactory . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

"Aside from the allegation of business reverses, no iota of evidence was ever presented to substantiate the same. Nowhere in the records could you find any financial statement of the respondent company to show, that they are suffering from business reverses to justify their alleged retrenchment program" (Rollo, p. 46).

Likewise, he found that the procedure for retrenchment was not complied with, saying: "There is no showing that the required one monthly advance notice in writing was served to complainant and the Department of Labor and Employment" (Rollo, p. 46).

The NLRC agreed with the Labor Arbiter that there was no evidence presented by petitioner to establish a retrenchment program of the company (Rollo, p. 32).

The evidence even showed that the branch manager of private respondent requested the assignment of another credit sales representative to support his area and such a representative was in fact assigned (Annex "B" and "C").

As held in Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA Manila) v. National Labor Relations Commission, 223 SCRA 305 (1993):chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Petitioner should be mindful that business losses, as a just cause for retrenchment, must be proved, for they can be feigned. In retrenching employees, employers are called upon to analyze the implications of their decision so as not to jeopardize the livelihood of their employees" (At p. 309; Emphasis supplied).

Petitioner claims, however, that private respondent was dismissed not only on the ground of retrenchment but also because of inefficiency and loss of trust and confidence. NLRC said that the letter of termination dated June 26, 1991 sent by petitioner only mentioned retrenchment as the ground for termination.

Furthermore, the evidence shows that private respondent received several promotions since his employment in 1986 (Annexes "G" to "V", Position Paper of Private Respondent). He was given bonuses for his collection efforts and a compensation adjustment for his excellent performance (Annex "A", Position Paper of Private Respondent). All these negate petitioner’s claim that t had lost trust and confidence in private Respondent.

In Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 217 SCRA 237 (1993), this Court emphasized:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Although loss of confidence is a valid cause to terminate an employee, it must nonetheless rest on an actual breach of duty committed by the employee and not on the employer’s caprices. The burden of proof rests upon the employer to establish that the dismissal is for cause in view of the security of tenure that employees enjoy under the Constitution and the Labor Code. The failure of the employer to do so would mean that the dismissal is not justified. . . . (at pp. 244-245; Emphasis supplied).

The other awards granted by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by NLRC, such as the amount of back wages and allowances, accrued salary, accrued bonus and attorney’s fee due private respondent, involve the determination of factual issues that is best left to NLRC (Wyeth-Suaco Laboratories, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 219 SCRA 356 [1993]).chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

While sustaining the findings of the Labor Arbiter that petitioner illegally dismissed private respondent, NLRC merely ordered the payment of separation pay to private respondent instead of ordering his reinstatement. Much as we would like to inquire into the validity of this order of NLRC, we refrain from doing so because private respondent seemed satisfied with such a remedy and did not question it.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-835 July 3, 1995 - GERARDO C. ALVARADO v. LILY A. LAQUINDANUM

  • G.R. No. 107748 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO SAPURCO

  • G.R. No. 109248 July 3, 1995 - GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110558 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELEDONIO B. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112279 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT ALBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114698 July 3, 1995 - WELLINGTON INVESTMENT AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115304 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLAND L. MELOSANTOS

  • G.R. No. 110240 July 4, 1995 - ENJAY INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109036 July 5, 1995 - BARTOLOME F. MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2747 July 6, 1995 - GODOFREDO A. VILLALON v. JIMENEZ B. BUENDIA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1008 July 6, 1995 - FLORENTINA BILAG-RIVERA v. CRISANTO FLORA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1026 July 6, 1995 - VICTOR BASCO v. DAMASO GREGORIO

  • G.R. No. 100912 July 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY A. CRISTOBAL

  • G.R. Nos. 103560 & 103599 July 6, 1995 - GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORT SERVICE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109166 July 6, 1995 - HERNAN R. LOPEZ, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112973-76 July 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PAGCU, JR.

  • G.R. No. 110321 July 7, 1995 - HILARIO VALLENDE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112629 July 7, 1995 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118644 July 7, 1995 - EPIMACO A. VELASCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102930 July 10, 1995 - BONIFACIO MONTILLA PEÑA v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119055 July 10, 1995 - ROY RODILLAS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • CBD Case No. 251 July 11, 1995 - ADELINA T. VILLANUEVA v. TERESITA STA. ANA

  • G.R. No. 109370 July 11, 1995 - ROGELIO PARMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110015 July 11, 1995 - MANILA BAY CLUB CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112046 July 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY ONG CO

  • G.R. No. 115245 July 11, 1995 - JUANITO C. PILAR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTION

  • G.R. No. 116008 July 11, 1995 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79896 July 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN L. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114167 July 12, 1995 - COASTWISE LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114186 July 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR R. ERNI

  • Adm. Case No. 3283 July 13, 1995 - RODOLFO MILLARE v. EUSTAQUIO Z. MONTERO

  • Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ-93-806 & MTJ-93-863 July 13, 1995 - ERLINO LITIGIO, ET AL. v. CELESTINO V. DICON

  • Bar Matter No. 712 July 13, 1995 - IN RE: AL C. ARGOSINO

  • G.R. No. 106769 July 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO WEDING

  • G.R. No. 109573 July 13, 1995 - SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110580 July 13, 1995 - MANUEL BANSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110930 July 13, 1995 - OSCAR LEDESMA AND COMPANY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116049 July 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 1048 July 14, 1995 - WELLINGTON REYES v. SALVADOR M. GAA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-90-400 July 14, 1995 - SUSIMO MOROÑO v. AURELIO J.V. LOMEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-818 July 14, 1995 - ENRIQUITO CABILAO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-932 July 14, 1995 - JESUS F. MANGALINDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-963 July 14, 1995 - MARILOU NAMA MORENO v. JOSE C. BERNABE

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1012 July 14, 1995 - ERNESTO G. OÑASA, JR. v. EUSEBIO J. VILLARAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1030 July 14, 1995 - GABRIEL C. ARISTORENAS, ET AL. v. ROGELIO S. MOLINA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1075 July 14, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LOLITA A. GRECIA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1086 July 14, 1995 - ALFERO C. BAGANO v. ARTURO A. PANINSORO

  • G.R. Nos. L-66211 & L-70528-35 July 14, 1995 - ARTURO Q. SALIENTES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82220, 82251 & 83059 July 14, 1995 - PABLITO MENESES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88384 July 14, 1995 - FEDERATION OF LAND REFORM FARMERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 - LEON TAMBASEN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91494 July 14, 1995 - CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92167-68 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE R. LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92660 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO MORICO

  • G.R. No. 96489 July 14, 1995 - NICOLAS G. SINTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97251-52 July 14, 1995 - JOVENCIO MINA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 97435 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO TEVES

  • G.R. No. 98920 July 14, 1995 - JESUS F. IGNACIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101135 July 14, 1995 - TEODORO RANCES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101286 July 14, 1995 - GIL RUBIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101875 July 14, 1995 - CASIANO A. NAVARRO III v. ISRAEL D. DAMASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102297 July 14, 1995 - NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH OF GOD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102993 July 14, 1995 - CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104639 July 14, 1995 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104682 July 14, 1995 - CAPITOL WIRELESS, INC. v. VICENTE S. BATE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105763 July 14, 1995 - LORENDO QUINONES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106279 July 14, 1995 - SULPICIO LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108870 July 14, 1995 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109680 July 14, 1995 - DIEGO RAPANUT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111515 July 14, 1995 - JACKSON BUILDING CONDOMINIUM CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112399 July 14, 1995 - AMADO S. BAGATSING v. COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112679 July 14, 1995 - COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113448 July 14, 1995 - DANILO Q. MILITANTE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113578 July 14, 1995 - SUPLICIO LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118597 July 14, 1995 - JOKER P. ARROYO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-997 July 17, 1995 - CHRISTOPHER CORDOVA, ET AL. v. RICARDO F. TORNILLA

  • G.R. No. 53877 July 17, 1995 - GREGORIO LABITAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91987 July 17, 1995 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. FRANKLIN DRILON

  • G.R. No. 108891 July 17, 1995 - JRS BUSINESS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 109613 July 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MAHINAY

  • G.R. No. 109809 July 17, 1995 - VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110910 July 17, 1995 - NATIONAL SUGAR TRADING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111797 July 17, 1995 - CARLOS ANG GOBONSENG, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112060 July 17, 1995 - NORBI H. EDDING v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112127 July 17, 1995 - CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112230 July 17, 1995 - NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113917 July 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIA M. CABACANG

  • G.R. No. 118910 July 17, 1995 - KILOSBAYAN, INC., ET AL. v. MANUEL L. MORATO

  • G.R. No. 119326 July 17, 1995 - NARCISO CANSINO v. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. No. 106539 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORTILLANO NAMAYAN

  • G.R. No. 108789 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABE ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114681 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALD AGUSTIN

  • G.R. No. 115115 July 18, 1995 - CONRAD AND COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107439 July 20, 1995 - MICHAEL T. UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-114382 July 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN ACOB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115884 July 20, 1995 - CJC TRADING, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117932 July 20, 1995 - AVON DALE GARMENTS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106425 & 106431-32 July 21, 1995 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110591 July 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIBURCIO E. BACULI

  • G.R. No. 107495 July 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLO Y. UYCOQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110106 July 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO R. MONTIERO

  • G.R. No. 111905 July 31, 1995 - ORIENTAL MINDORO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.