THIRD
DIVISION
JULIE
G. CHUA, ELEANOR C. GO
and JOSEPHINE T. LOBENDINO,
Petitioners,
G. R. No. 111385
January 30, 1997
-versus-
NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
HON. OSWALD B. LORENZO, CHINA AIRLINES,
LTD. and K.Y. CHANG,
Respondents.
R
E S O L U T I O N
FRANCISCO, J.:
Petitioners
Eleanor C. Go, Julie G. Chua, and
Josephine T. Lobendino were former regular employees of private
respondent
China Airlines LTD. [China Airlines, for brevity]. They were assigned
at
the Ticketing Section of its Manila Branch Office, with petitioner Go,[1]
as Senior Ticketing Agent, and petitioners Chua[2]
and Lobendino,[3]
as Ticketing Agents.
On October 29,
1986, private respondent K.Y. Chang,
then District Manager of Manila Branch Office, sent a Memorandum[4]
to Rebecca Veloso, Head of Ticketing Section, informing her that "in
order
to prevent and arrest further losses, Management has decided to
temporarily
close its (T)icketing (S)ection." Similar notices were likewise sent to
herein petitioners,[5]
and to the Department of Labor and Employment[6]
[DOLE], notifying them that petitioners "will be temporarily laid-off
from
employment effective October 30, 1986." Thereafter, China Airlines
decided
to permanently close said TicketingSection.[7]
Thus, on November 5, 1986, it sent the corresponding notices to the
petitioners,[8]
advising them that their recent lay-off from employment will be
considered
permanent effective one [1] month from receipt of such notice. A
manifestation
informing the DOLE of this impending retrenchment was likewise filed on
November 11, 1986.[9]
Nearly three
years later, or on October 9, 1989,
petitioners sued China Airlines and K.Y. Chang before the Labor Arbiter
for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal with claims for
reinstatement,
backwages, damages, and attorneys fees. The Labor Arbiter dismissed
petitioners'
charges, declaring that "the retrenchment (was) validly effected."[10]
Nevertheless, the Labor Arbiter directed China Airlines to pay
petitioners'
"retirement and/or separation pay benefits", to wit: [a] Eleanor
Go
P372,730.00; [b] Julie Chua P100,000.00; and [c] Josephine
Lobendino
P54,000.00.[11]
In addition, the Labor Arbiter also ordered China Airlines to pay
attorneys
fees to the petitioners in the amount of P52,673.00, or ten [10]
percent
of the aggregate monetary awards.cralaw:red
Dissatisfied,
petitioners appealed to the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which declared that the retrenchment
was "validly effected in good faith".[12]
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,[13]
but the same was denied.[14]
Hence, this petition assailing the decision of the NLRC for having been
allegedly rendered with grave abuse of discretion.cralaw:red
We note that the
instant petition principally
questions the findings of the NLRC that China Airlines suffered
business
losses for six consecutive years from 1980 to 1985.[15]
In fact, petitioners argue that China Airlines could not have suffered
"serious financial losses" then because, in 1984, the latter even
granted
a "whooping" 35% salary increased to its Manila Branch Office employees.[16]
We are of the opinion, however, that China Airlines' magnanimity in
increasing
the salary of its employees in one of its several branch offices, does
not disprove the fact that it suffered business losses in its worldwide
operations. As the NLRC observed:
What else, can the complainants ask to
show
that
the company is losing aside from the closure of the Regional Office for
Northeast Asia, in Tokyo, Japan; the reduced personnel in Jeddah Saudi
Arabia from thirty [30] to three [3]; Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from
ten [10] to two [2]; the Regional Office for the Americas in San
Francisco,
California and the Regional Office in Europe, were likewise closed;
instead,
a Paris branch was established with only five [5] employees.[17]
At any rate, We
are not prepared to disregard the
findings of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that China Airlines was
incurring business losses when it effected the questioned retrenchment.
These, essentially, are factual matters which are within the competence
of the labor tribunals to determine,[18]
and whose findings thereon are accorded by this Court with respect and
finality if they are supported by substantial evidence,[19]
as in this case.
With respect to
petitioners' contention that the
closure of the Ticketing Section was unwarranted as the Manila Branch
Office
"has always been making money for China Airlines",[20]
suffice it to state that management has the prerogative to choose which
department or section of its business is to be closed for economic
reasons.[21]
And the exercise of such prerogative if done in good faith to advance
the
employer's interests, as in this case, will always be upheld.[22]
In view of the
foregoing, We find no grave abuse
of discretion on the part of NLRC in upholding the validity of the
retrenchment
of the petitioners.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
instant petition is hereby DISMISSED
and the decision of the NLRC is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban,
JJ., concur.cralaw:red
_________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Hired in October 1968 as ground stewardess, appointed reservation clerk
in 1969 and transferred to the Ticketing Section in 1977.
[2]
Joined China Airlines in April 1976 as receptionist, but transferred to
the Ticketing Section in August 1977.
[3]
Employed in December 1980 as receptionist, became administrative
secretary
in 1983, promoted to cashier in 1985 and transferred to the Ticketing
Section
in 1986.
[4]
Annex "21"; Rollo, p. 284.
[5]
Annexes "18" to "20"; Rollo, pp. 281-283.
[6]
Annexes "22", "22-A", and "22-B"; Rollo, pp. 285-287.
[7]
As early as April 15, 1985, the Manila Branch had already received a
memorandum
[Annexes "16", "16-A", "16-A-1", and "16-B"; Rollo, pp. 274-277] from
the
Head Office in Taipei requiring the former to submit its Retrenchment
Plan,
the pertinent portions of which are herein quoted:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Date: April 15, 1985
File: [74] Kwei-Hsin-Fa 2839
To: MNL, JKT, SEL, JED, KUL
Branch Offices
Subject: Submit Retrenchment
Plan of Your Branch Office in order to Reduce Operation Cost
Explanation:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1. A review of our financial
statements for the past has shown that our Company had continuously
experience
financial losses during the previous 5 years beginning from 1980.
Although
we had taken various measures to minimize our expenses, yet the results
were limited by only reducing some estimated losses, and our goal for
turning
"Loss" to "Gain" is hardly achieved. The estimated losses for this year
[1985] in US$9.46 million, however, we already suffered from such
amount
of losses only up to the end of February 1985. In order to abate and
prevent
further continued losses, we have to undertake more effective programs.
xxx
xxx
xxx
4. Your office is now handling
flights less than seven frequencies weekly. Number of employees seems
to
be much more than what the work load needs. Accordingly, you are
directed
to take such measures as may be necessary and feasible to carry out the
retrenchment program, including reduction of personnel at a minimum
number
of employees, and to report to Head Office immediately. [Emphasis ours]
CHANG, LIN-TE [with Seal]
President
[8]
Annexes "25" to "25-B"; Rollo, pp. 291-292; Annexes "26" to "26-B";
Rollo,
pp. 293-294; Annexes "26" to "26-B"; pp. 295-296.
[9]
Annexes "29" to "29-A"; Rollo, pp. 299-300.
[10]
Decision dated May 2, 1991, penned by Labor Arbiter Oswald B. Lorenzo,
p. 24; Rollo, p. 52.
[11]
Id., pp. 52-53.
[12]
National Labor Relations Commission's Decision promulgated on December
3, 1992, p. 23; Rollo, p. 88.
[13]
Annex "D"; Rollo, pp. 90-100.
[14]
National Labor Relations Commission's Order promulgated on June 30,
1993;
Rollo, pp. 101-102.
[15]
Year Net Losses
1980 NT$ 690,801,218.71 [Annex
"1"; Rollo, p. 203].
1981 NT$ 442,305,954.41 [Annex
"2"; Rollo, p. 204].
1982 NT$ 890,387,411.68 [Annex
"3"; Rollo, p. 205].
1983 NT$ 1,067,262,913.55
[Annex
"4"; Rollo, p. 206].
1984 NT$ 641,715,712.00 [Annex
"5"; Rollo, p. 207].
1985 NT$ 334,049,485.00 [Annex
"6"; Rollo, p. 208].
[16]
Petition, p. 16; Rollo, p. 17.
[17]
NLRC Decision, pp. 21-22; Rollo, pp. 86-87.
[18]
Sebuguero v. NLRC, 248 SCRA 532, 544 [1995], citing Lopez Sugar
Corporation
v. Federation of Free Workers, 189 SCRA 179 [1990].
[19]
Catatista v. NLRC, 247 SCRA 46 [1995]; Sebuguero v. NLRC, 248 SCRA 532
[1995]; See Philippine School of Business Administration v. NLRC,
223 SCRA 305 [1993] and Tiu v. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 95845,
February
21, 1996.
[20]
Petition, p. 20; Rollo, p. 21.
[21]
Dangan v. NLRC, 127 SCRA 706 [1984]; Special Events and Central
Shipping
Office Workers Union v. San Miguel Corporation, 122 SCRA 557, 574
[1983].
[22]
See Maya Farms Employees Organization, et al. v. NLRC, et al., 239 SCRA
508 [1994]; Union Carbide Labor Union v. Union Carbide, 215 SCRA
554 [1992]. |