SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 203932, June 08, 2016
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. ENRIQUE LIGAN, EDUARDO MAGDARAOG, JOLITO OLIVEROS, RICHARD GONCER, EMELITO SOCO, VIRGILIO P. CAMPOS, JR., LORENZO BUTANAS, RAMEL BERNARDES, NELSON M. DULCE, CLEMENTE R. LUMAYNO, ARTHUR M. CAPIN, ALLAN BENTUZAL, AND JEFFREY LLENES, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
REYES, J.:
This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration1 of the Court's Resolution2 dated November 12, 2012 denying the petition outright for failure to show reversible error in the Decision3 dated February 15, 2012 and Resolution4 dated September 27, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 00922, which dismissed the petition for review on certiorari of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) from the Decision5 dated August 27, 2004 and Resolution6 dated April 25, 2005 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), 4th Division, Cebu City in NLRC Case No. V-000112-2000.
WHEREFORE, the [CA] Decision of September 29, 2000 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.On motion for reconsideration by PAL, the Court on April 30, 2009 modified the above decision,14 to read as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
[PAL] is ORDERED to:
a) accept respondents ENRIQUE LIGAN, EMELITO SOCO, ALLAN PANQUE, JOLITO OLIVEROS, RICHARD GONCER, NONILON PILAPIL, AQUILINO YBANEZ, BERNABE SANDOVAL, RUEL GONCER, VIRGILIO P. CAMPOS, JR., ARTHUR M. CAPIN, RAMEL BERNARDES, LORENZO BUTANAS, BENSON CARESUSA, JEFFREY LLENOS, ROQUE PILAPIL, ANTONIO M. PAREJA, CLEMENTE R. LUMAYNO, NELSON TAMPUS, ROLANDO TUNACAO, CHERRIE ALEGRES, EDUARDO MAGDADARAUG, NELSON M. DULCE and ALLAN BENTUZAL as its regular employees in their same or substantially equivalent positions, and pay the wages and benefits due them as regular employees plus salary differential corresponding to the difference between the wages and benefits given them and those granted to petitioner's other regular employees of the same rank; and b) pay respondent BENEDICTO AUXTERO salary differential; backwages from the time of his dismissal until the finality of this decision; and separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement, equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service until the finality of this decision.
There being no data from which this Court may determine the monetary liabilities of petitioner, the case is REMANDED to the [LA] solely for that purpose.
SO ORDERED.13 (Emphasis, italics and underscoring in the original)cralawred
WHEREFORE, the [CA] Decision of September 29, 2000 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.Meanwhile, while the above regularization cases were pending in the CA, PAL terminated its service agreements with Synergy effective June 30, 1998, alleging serious business losses. Consequently, Synergy also terminated its employment contracts with the respondents, who forthwith filed individual complaints16 for illegal dismissal against PAL. PAL in turn filed a third-party complaint17 against Synergy.18ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[PAL] is ORDERED to recognize respondents ENRIQUE LIGAN, EMELITO SOCO, ALLAN PANQUE, JOLITO OLIVEROS, RICHARD GONCER, NONILON PILAPIL, AQUILINO YBANEZ, BERNABE SANDOVAL, RUEL GONCER, VIRGILIO P. CAMPOS, JR., ARTHUR M. CAPIN, RAMEL BERNARDES, LORENZO BUTANAS, BENSON CARISUSA, JEFFREY LLENES, ANTONIO M. PAREJA, CLEMENTE R. LUMAYNO, NELSON TAMPUS, ROLANDO TUNACAO, CHERIE ALEGRES, EDUARDO MAGDADARAUG, NELSON M. DULCE and ALLAN BENTUZAL as its regular employees in their same or substantially equivalent positions, and pay the wages and benefits due them as regular employees plus salary differential corresponding to the difference between the wages and benefits given them and those granted to petitioner's other regular employees of the same or substantially equivalent rank, up to June 30. 1998, without prejudice to the resolution of the illegal dismissal case.
There being no data from which this Court may determine the monetary liabilities of petitioner, the case is REMANDED to the [LA] solely for that purpose.
SO ORDERED.15 (Emphasis, italics and underscoring in the original)cralawred
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 27 July 1998 of the Executive [LA] is SET ASIDE and a new one is rendered declaring [PAL] to have illegally dismissed the complainants, and ordering [PAL] to pay to the thirteen (13) complainants the following:PAL moved for reconsideration arguing that as janitors, the respondents were hired under a permissible job-contracting arrangement. In its Resolution dated April 25, 2005 denying the motion for reconsideration,23 the NLRC pointed out that in fact most of the respondents worked as station attendants or station loaders, not janitors, and that PAL could have submitted their contracts as janitors, but did not. The NLRC also noted that in all seven previous cases appealed to it involving the same parties, it invariably ruled that PAL was the employer of the respondents and Synergy was a labor-only contractor.All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
- SEPARATION PAY in lieu of reinstatement from the start of their employment until the finality of this decision, computed as described above;
- BACKWAGES from the time compensation is withheld from them until the finality of this decision[; and]
- Wage differentials of P390.00 for each complainant.
SO ORDERED.22cralawred
WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION OF TFIE [NLRC] WHICH WAS ARRIVED AT BY SIMPLY ADOPTING THE SUPPOSED "FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION" OF THE [CA] IN A NON-EXISTENT DECISION IS A VALID AND LEGALLY BINDING DECISION.28cralawredOn November 12, 2012, the Court denied the petition outright for failure to show any reversible error committed by the CA.29 On January 24, 2013, PAL moved for reconsideration of the denial,30 to which the respondents filed their "Vehement Opposition with Motion to Sanction the Petitioner for Forum Shopping."31ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
ART. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:According to the CA, PAL failed to show that the respondents were guilty of any of the causes above-mentioned. Neither was due process observed by PAL in dismissing them, who were merely notified of their termination through a notice sent to them by Synergy, which reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
- Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
- Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
- Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
- Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
- Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
PAL has terminated our contract effective June 30, 1998. In view of this contract termination by PAL, our contract with employees like you who have been contracted as Station Loader/Station Attendant, will be terminated also on 30 June 1998.Moreover, PAL cannot deny that all along it had always known of the ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 52329, which as PAL itself also pointed out, was elevated for review to this Court in G.R. No. 146408. PAL is aware that G.R. No. 146408 was decided on February 29, 2008, and its motion for reconsideration was resolved on April 30, 2009, whereas the instant petition was filed only on November 6, 2012. As the petitioner in CA-G.R. SP No. 52329, PAL even attached in Annex "E" of this petition a copy of the decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 52329.35 PAL has thus always known that the issue therein was whether Synergy was a labor-only contractor or a legitimate contractor; that the respondents were adjudged as regular employees of PAL entitled to all the benefits of its regular employees, that Synergy was a labor-only contractor and thus a mere agent of PAL.
Please be guided accordingly.34cralawred
Other than its bare allegations, [PAL] presented nothing to substantiate its impossibility of compliance. In fact, [PAL] waived this defense by failing to raise it in its Memorandum filed on June 14, 1999 before the [CA]. x x x.40 (Citation omitted)cralawredWhile retrenchment is a valid exercise of management prerogative, it is well settled that economic losses as a ground for dismissing an employee is factual in nature, and in order for a retrenchment scheme to be valid, all of the following elements under Article 283 of the Labor Code must concur or be present,41 to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(1) That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer;The absence of one element renders the retrenchment scheme an irregular exercise of management prerogative. The employer's obligation to exhaust all other means to avoid further losses without retrenching its employees is a component of the first element enumerated above. To impart operational meaning to the constitutional policy of providing full protection to labor, the employer's prerogative to bring down labor costs by retrenching must be exercised essentially as a measure of last resort, after less drastic means have been tried and found wanting.42ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(2) That the employer served written notice both to the employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment;
(3) That the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half QA) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher;
(4) That the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench employees 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 uses 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.cralawred
Endnotes:
** Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2354 dated June 2, 2016 vice Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno.
1Rollo, pp. 551-556.
2 Id. at 550.
3 Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Abraham B. Borreta concurring; id. at 22-35.
4 Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring; id. at 37-42.
5 Penned by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles, with Commissioners Edgardo M. Enerlan and Oscar S. Uy concurring; id. at 68-73.
6 Id. at 75-77.
7 Id. at 23.
8Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Ligan, et al., 570 Phil. 497, 502-503 (2008).
9 Id. at 503-504.
10 356 Phil. 811 (1998).
11Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Ligan, et al., supra note 8, at 504; rollo, p. 24.
12Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Ligan, et al., 570 Phil. 497 (2008).
13 Id. at 515.
14Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Ligan, et al., 605 Phil. 327 (2009).
15 Id. at 335-336.
16Rollo, pp. 78-79.
17 Id. at 90-92.
18 Id. at 24.
19 Id. at 206-216.
20 Id. at 70.
21 Id. at 68-73.
22 Id. at 73.
23 Id. at 75-77.
24 Id. at 44-63.chanrobleslaw
25 Id. at 22-35.
26 Id. at 37-42.
27 Id. at 3-17.
28 Id. at 8.
29 Id. at 550.
30 Id. at 551-556.
31 Id. at 560-564.
32 Id. at 308-310.
33 Id. at 32.
34 Id. at 33.
35 Id. at 322-333.
36 See CA Decision dated February 15, 2012; id. at 29.
37Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Ligan, et al., supra note 14, at 334.
38 Id. at 331.
39 Id. at 334.
40Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Ligan, et ai, supra note 8, at 514.
41Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines Inc., et al., 617 Phil. 687, 717 (2009).
42Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Federation of Free Workers, 267 Phil. 212, 221 (1990).
43Rollo, p. 38.
44 Id. at 38-39.
45Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation v. Acuña, 492 Phil. 518, 530-531 (2005).