THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 176908, November 11, 2015
PURISIMO M. CABAOBAS, EXUPERIO C. MOLINA, GILBERTO V. OPINION, VICENTE R. LAURON, RAMON M. DE PAZ, JR., ZACARIAS E. CARBO, JULITO G. ABARRACOSO, DOMINGO B. GLORIA, AND FRANCISCO P. CUMPIO, Petitioners, v. PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
PERALTA, J.:
For resolution is petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated March 25, 2015 with Motion to Refer Case to the [Court] En Banc, stating that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS MATTER IS PROPER FOR RESOLUTION BY THIS HONORABLE COURT, EN BANC.1
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS CASE HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF ITS OWN PECULIAR FACTUAL SETTING AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS PROVED AND EXISTING IN THE CASE OF MOLON.2
RESPONDENT FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE REQUISITES OF A VALID RETRENCHMENT PROGRAM AND THE DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND NLRC ARE BEREFT OF ANY DISCUSSION OR CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT COMPLIED WITH THE THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH REQUISITES.3cralawlawlibrary
x x x the issues, subject matters and causes of action between the parties in Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon and the present case are identical, namely, the validity of PCPPI's retrenchment program, and the legality of its employees' termination. There is also substantial identity of parties because there is a community of interest between the parties in the first case and the parties in the second case, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case. The respondents in Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. vs. Molon are petitioners' former co-employees and co-union members of LEPCEU-ALU who were also terminated pursuant to the PCPPI's retrenchment program. The only difference between the two cases is the date of the employees' termination, i.e., Molon, et al, belong to the first batch of employees retrenched on July 31, 1999, while petitioners belong to the second batch retrenched on February 15, 2000. That the validity of the same PCPPI retrenchment program had already been passed upon and, thereafter, sustained in the related case of Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon, albeit involving different parties, impels the Court to accord a similar disposition and uphold the legality of same program, x x x7cralawlawlibrary
On PCPPI's alleged failure to explain its acts of regularizing four (4) employees and hiring of sixty (63) replacements and additional workers, the Court upholds the NLRC's correct ruling thereon, viz.:Let Us squarely tackle this issue of replacements in the cases of the complainant in this case. We bear in mind that replacements refer to the regular workers subjected to retrenchment, occupying regular positions in the company structure. Artemio Kempis, a filer mechanic with a salary of P9,366.00 was replaced by Rogelio Castil. Rogelio Castil was hired through an agency named Helpmate Janitorial Services. Castil's employer is Helpmate Janitorial Services. How can a janitorial service employee perform the function of a filer mechanic? How much does Pepsi Cola pay Helpmate Janitorial Services for the contract of service? These questions immediately come to mind. Being not a regular employee of Pepsi Cola, he is not a replacement of Kempis. The idea of rightsizing is to reduce the number of workers and related functions and trim down, streamline, or simplify the structure of the organization to the level of utmost efficiency and productivity in order to realize profit and survive. After the CRP shall have been implemented, the desired size of the corporation is attained. Engaging the services of service contractors does not expand the size of the corporate structure. In this sense, the retrenched workers were not replaced.cralawlawlibrary
The same is true in the case of Exuperio C. Molina who was allegedly replaced by Eddie Piamonte, an employee of, again, Helpmate Janitorial Services; of Gilberto V. Opinion who was allegedly replaced by Norlito Ulahay, an employee of Nestor Ortiga General Services; of Purisimo M. Caba[o]bas who was allegedly replaced by Christopher Albadrigo, an employee of Helpmate Janitorial Services; of Vicente R. Lauron who was allegedly replaced by Wendylen Bron, an employee of Double "N" General Services; of Ramos M. de Paz, who was disabled, and replaced by Alex Dieta, an employee of Nestor Ortiga General Services; and of Zacarias E. Carbo who was allegedly replaced by an employee of Double "N" General Services, x x x8
Endnotes:
1Rollo, p. 418.
2 Id. at 420.
3 Id. at 421.
4 G.R. No. 175002, February 18, 2013, 691 SCRA 113.
5 Casino, A., Mendigo, R., Poblete, E. and Rosario, R., rollo, p. 420.
6 4. That the employer exercises its prerogative in good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure; and
5. That the employer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age and financial hardship for certain workers.
7Rollo, pp. 407-408. (Citations omitted.)
8 Id. at 411 -412. (Emphasis added)
9 Id. at 53.
10 Id. at 214.
11 Id. at 38.
12Engr. Besana, et al. v. Mayor, 639 Phil. 216, 229 (20 10).
13Section 3. Court en bane matters and cases. — The Court en bane shall act on the following matters and cases:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, executive order, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;
(b) cases raising novel questions of law;
(c) cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls;
(d) cases involving decisions, resolutions, and orders of the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit;
(e) cases where the penalty recommended or imposed is the dismissal of a judge, the disbarment of a lawyer, the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one year, or a fine exceeding forty thousand pesos;
(f) cases covered by the preceding paragraph and involving the reinstatement in the judiciary of a dismissed judge, the reinstatement of a lawyer in the roll of attorneys, or the lifting of a judge's suspension or a lawyer's suspension from the practice of law;
(g) cases involving Hie discipline of a Member of the Court, or a Presiding Justice, or any Associate Justice of the collegial appellate court;
(h) cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the Court en bane or by a Division may be modified or reversed;
(i) cases involving conflicting decisions of two or more divisions;
(j) cases where three votes in a Division cannot be obtained;
(k) division cases where the subject matter has a huge financial impact on businesses or affects the welfare of a community;
(l) subject to Section 11 (b) of this rule, other division cases that, in the opinion of at least three Members of the Division who are voting and present, are appropriate for transfer to the Court en banc;
(m) cases that the Court en banc deems of sufficient importance to merit its attention; and
(n) all matters involving policy decisions in the administrative supervision of all courts and their personnel.