ATOK BIG WEDGE COMPANY, INC.

, Petitioner,
vs.
JESUS P. GISON, Respondent.
SOMETIME in February 1993, respondent Jesus P. Gison as
en!a!ed as part"ti#e $onsu%tant on retainer basis by petitioner
&to' (i! )ed!e *o#pany, In$. &s su$+ $onsu%tant, Gison assisted
petitioner,s retained %e!a% $ounse% it+ #atters pertainin! to t+e
prose$ution o- $ases a!ainst i%%e!a% sur-a$e o$$upants it+in t+e
area $overed by t+e $o#pany,s #inera% $%ai#s. .e as %i'eise
tas'ed to per-or# %iaison or' it+ severa% !overn#ent a!en$ies,
+i$+ +e said as +is e/pertise.
.e as not re0uired to report to o1$e on a re!u%ar basis, e/$ept
+en o$$asiona%%y re0uested by t+e #ana!e#ent to dis$uss
#atters needin! +is e/pertise. For +is servi$es, +e re$eived a
retainer -ee o- P3,222 a #ont+ +i$+ as de%ivered to +i# eit+er at
+is residen$e or in a %o$a% restaurant. T+e parties e/e$uted a
retainer a!ree#ent but t+e sa#e as #isp%a$ed and $an no %on!er
be -ound. T+e arran!e#ent %asted -or 11 years.
T+e *ourt o- &ppea%s 3*&4 +e%d t+at Gison as a re!u%ar e#p%oyee
o- petitioner &to' (i! )ed!e *o#pany, In$. 5id t+e *& err6
Ru%in!7 8es.
*ontrary to t+e $on$%usion o- t+e *&, respondent is not an
e#p%oyee, #u$+ #ore a re!u%ar e#p%oyee o- petitioner. T+e
appe%%ate $ourt,s pre#ise t+at re!u%ar e#p%oyees are t+ose +o
per-or# a$tivities +i$+ are desirab%e and ne$essary -or t+e
business o- t+e e#p%oyer is not deter#inative in t+is $ase. In -a$t,
any a!ree#ent #ay provide t+at one party s+a%% render servi$es
-or and in be+a%- o- anot+er, no #atter +o ne$essary -or t+e
%atter,s business, even it+out bein! +ired as an e#p%oyee. .en$e,
respondent,s %en!t+ o- servi$e and petitioner,s repeated a$t o-
assi!nin! respondent so#e tas's to be per-or#ed did not resu%t to
respondent,s entit%e#ent to t+e ri!+ts and privi%e!es o- a re!u%ar
e#p%oyee.
Furt+er#ore, despite t+e -a$t t+at petitioner #ade use o- t+e
servi$es o- respondent -or e%even years, +e sti%% $annot be
$onsidered as a re!u%ar e#p%oyee o- petitioner.
&rti$%e 9:2 o- t+e ;abor *ode, in +i$+ t+e %oer $ourt used to
buttress its <ndin!s t+at respondent be$a#e a re!u%ar e#p%oyee o-
t+e petitioner, is not app%i$ab%e in t+e $ase at bar. Indeed, t+e
*ourt +as ru%ed t+at said provision is not t+e yardsti$' -or
deter#inin! t+e e/isten$e o- an e#p%oy#ent re%ations+ip be$ause
it #ere%y distin!uis+es beteen to 'inds o- e#p%oyees, i.e.,
re!u%ar e#p%oyees and $asua% e#p%oyees, -or purposes o-
deter#inin! t+e ri!+t o- an e#p%oyee to $ertain bene<ts, to =oin or
-or# a union, or to se$urity o- tenure> it does not app%y +ere t+e
e/isten$e o- an e#p%oy#ent re%ations+ip is in dispute. It is,
t+ere-ore, erroneous on t+e part o- t+e *ourt o- &ppea%s to re%y on
&rti$%e 9:2 in deter#inin! +et+er an e#p%oyer"e#p%oyee
re%ations+ip e/ists beteen respondent and t+e petitioner 3&to' (i!
)ed!e *o#pany, In$. vs. Jesus P. Gison, G.R. ?o. 1@9A12, &u!ust
:, 92114.
Francisco v. NLC A!"!s# $%, &''( G. NO.
%)''*) +'' SCA (,'
Fac#s-
Petitioner as +ired by Basei *orporation durin! its
in$orporation sta!e. S+e as desi!nated as &$$ountant and
*orporate Se$retary and as assi!ned to +and%e a%% t+e a$$ountin!
needs o- t+e $o#pany, +oever s+e as not entrusted it+ t+e
$orporate do$u#ents> neit+er did s+e attend any board #eetin!
nor re0uired to do so. S+e never prepared any %e!a% do$u#ent and
never represented t+e $o#pany as its *orporate Se$retary, but s+e
as prevai%ed upon to si!n do$u#entation -or t+e $o#pany. S+e
as a%so desi!nated as ;iason O1$er to se$ure business per#its,
$onstru$tion per#its and ot+er %i$enses -or t+e initia% operation o-
t+e $o#pany.
In 199@, petitioner as desi!nated &$tin! Mana!er, s+e
as assi!ned to +and%e re$ruit#ent o- a%% e#p%oyees and per-or#
#ana!e#ent ad#inistration -un$tions. For A years, petitioner
per-or#ed t+e duties o- &$tin! Mana!er.
In January 9221, petitioner as rep%a$ed by ;iCa R.
Fuentes as Mana!er and t+e petitioner as assured t+at s+e ou%d
sti%% be $onne$ted it+ Basei *orporation as Te$+ni$a% &ssistant to
Sei=i Ba#ura and in $+ar!e o- a%% (IR #atters. Petitioner did not
re$eive +er sa%ary -ro# t+e $o#pany and as in-or#ed t+at s+e is
no %on!er $onne$ted it+ t+e $o#pany. Petitioner <%ed an $tion -or
$onstru$tive dis#issa% be-ore t+e %abor arbiter.
Private respondents averred t+at petitioner is not an
e#p%oyee o- Basei *orporation. T+ey a%%e!ed t+at as te$+ni$a%
$onsu%tant, petitioner per-or#ed +er or' at +er on dis$retion
it+out $ontro% and supervision o- Basei *orporation. S+e +ad no
dai%y ti#e re$ord and s+e $a#e to t+e o1$e any ti#e s+e anted.
T+e $o#pany never inter-ered it+ +er or' e/$ept t+at -ro# ti#e
to ti#e, t+e #ana!e#ent ou%d as' +er opinion on #atters
re%atin! to +er pro-ession. T+e petitioner did not !o t+rou!+ t+e
usua% pro$edure o- se%e$tion o- e#p%oyees and +er desi!nation as
te$+ni$a% $onsu'tant depended so%e%y upon t+e i%% o-
#ana!e#ent. &s su$+, +er $onsu%tan$y #ay be ter#inated any
ti#e $onsiderin! t+at +er servi$es ere on%y te#porary in nature
and dependent on t+e needs o- t+e $orporation.
Iss!.- )on t+ere as an e#p%oyer"e#p%oyee re%ations+ip beteen
t+e parties.
!/in"-
In $ertain $ases t+e $ontro% test is not su1$ient to !ive a
$o#p%ete pi$ture o- t+e re%ations+ip beteen t+e parties, oin! to
t+e $o#p%e/ity o- su$+ a re%ations+ip +ere severa% positions +ave
been +e%d by t+e or'er. T+ere are instan$es +en, aside -ro# t+e
e#p%oyer,s poer to $ontro% t+e e#p%oyee it+ respe$t to t+e
#eans and #et+ods by +i$+ t+e or' is to be a$$o#p%is+ed,
e$ono#i$ rea%ities o- t+e e#p%oy#ent re%ations +e%p provide a
$o#pre+ensive ana%ysis o- t+e true $%assi<$ation o- t+e individua%,
+et+er as e#p%oyee, independent $ontra$tor, $orporate o1$er or
so#e ot+er $apa$ity.
T+e better approa$+ ou%d t+ere-ore be to adopt a to"
tiered test invo%vin!7 14 putative e#p%oyer,s poer to $ontro% t+e
e#p%oyee it+ respe$t to t+e #eans and #et+ods by +i$+ t+e
or' is to be a$$o#p%is+ed> and 94 t+e under%yin! e$ono#i$
rea%ities o- t+e a$tivity or re%ations+ip. T+is to"tiered test ou%d
provide us it+ a -ra#eor' o- ana%ysis, +i$+ ou%d ta'e into
$onsideration t+e tota%ity o- $ir$u#stan$es surroundin! t+e true
nature o- t+e re%ations+ip beteen t+e parties. T+is is espe$ia%%y
appropriate in t+is $ase +ere t+ere is no ritten a!ree#ent or
ter#s o- re-eren$e to base t+e re%ations+ip on> and due to t+e
$o#p%e/ity o- t+e re%ations+ip based on t+e various positions and
responsibi%ities !iven to t+e or'er over t+e period o- t+e %atter,s
e#p%oy#ent.
T+e deter#ination o- t+e re%ations+ip beteen e#p%oyer
and e#p%oyee depends upon t+e $ir$u#stan$es o- t+e +o%e
e$ono#i$ a$tivity, su$+ as7 14 t+e e/tent to +i$+ t+e servi$es
per-or#ed are an inte!ra% part o- t+e e#p%oyer,s business> 94 t+e
e/tent o- t+e or'er,s invest#ent in e0uip#ent and -a$i%ities> 34
t+e nature and de!ree o- $ontro% e/er$ised by t+e e#p%oyer> D4 t+e
or'er,s opportunity -or pro<t or %oss> A4 t+e a#ount o- initiative,
s'i%%, =ud!#ent or -oresi!+t re0uired -or t+e su$$ess o- t+e $%ai#ed
independent enterprise> @4 t+e per#anen$y and duration o- t+e
re%ations+ip beteen t+e or'er and t+e e#p%oyer> and E4 t+e
de!ree o- dependen$y o- t+e or'er upon t+e e#p%oyer o- +is
$ontinued e#p%oy#ent in t+at %ine o- business.
T+e proper standard o- e$ono#i$ dependen$e is +et+er
t+e or'er is dependent on t+e a%%e!ed e#p%oyer -or +is $ontinued
e#p%oy#ent in t+at %ine o- business. (ased on t+e -ore!oin!, t+ere
$an be no ot+er $on$%usion t+at petitioner is an e#p%oyee o-
respondent Basei *orporations. S+e as se%e$ted and en!a!ed by
t+e $o#pany -or $o#pensation, and is e$ono#i$a%%y dependent
upon respondent -or +er $ontinued e#p%oy#ent in t+at %ine o-
business. .er #ain =ob -un$tion invo%ved a$$ountin! and ta/
servi$es rendered to respondent $orporation on a re!u%ar basis
over an inde<nite period o- en!a!e#ent. Respondent $orporation
+ired and en!a!ed petitioner -or $o#pensation, it+ t+e poer to
dis#iss +er -or $ause. More i#portant%y, respondent $orporation
+ad t+e poer to $ontro% petitioner it+ t+e #eans and #et+ods
by +i$+ t+e or' is to be a$$o#p%is+ed.
Coca Co/a Bo##/.rs Inc. v. C/i0aco F.1r!ar2 +,
&'') G.. No. %3(**% +%3 SCA %(3
Fac#s-
Respondent 5r. 5ean ?. *%i#a$o is a #edi$a% do$tor +o
as +ired by petitioner *o$a"*o%a (ott%ers P+i%s., In$ 3*o$a"
*o%a4, by virtue o- a Retainer &!ree#ent. T+e Retainer &!ree#ent,
+i$+ be!an on January 1, 19::, as reneed annua%%y. T+e %ast
one e/pired 5e$e#ber 31, 1993. 5espite t+e non"renea% o- t+e
Retainer &!ree#ent, respondent $ontinued to per-or# +is
-un$tions as $o#pany do$tor to *o$a"*o%a unti% +e re$eived a %etter
-ro# petitioner $o#pany $on$%udin! t+eir retainers+ip a!ree#ent.
It is noted t+at as ear%y as Septe#ber 1999, petitioner as a%ready
#a'in! in0uiries re!ardin! +is status it+ petitioner $o#pany.
Petitioner $o#pany, +oever, did not ta'e any a$tion. Respondent
in0uired -ro# t+e #ana!e#ent o- petitioner $o#pany +et+er it
as a!reeab%e to re$o!niCe +i# as a re!u%ar e#p%oyee. T+e
#ana!e#ent re-used to do so.
Respondent <%ed a *o#p%aint be-ore t+e ?;R* see'in!
re$o!nition as a re!u%ar e#p%oyee o- petitioner $o#pany and
prayed -or t+e pay#ent o- a%% bene<ts o- a re!u%ar e#p%oyee. )+i%e
t+e $o#p%aint as pendin! be-ore t+e ;abor &rbiter, respondent
re$eived a %etter -ro# petitioner $o#pany $on$%udin! t+eir
retainers+ip a!ree#ent eFe$tive 32 days -ro# re$eipt t+ereo-. T+is
pro#pted respondent to <%e a $o#p%aint -or i%%e!a% dis#issa%
a!ainst petitioner $o#pany. Respondent $ontend . T+e ;abor
&rbiter and ?;R* de$%ared t+at t+ere is no e#p%oyer"e#p%oyee
re%ations+ip e/isted beteen t+e parties. .oever, t+e *ourt o-
&ppea%s de$%ared t+at respondent s+ou%d be $%assi<ed as a re!u%ar
e#p%oyee +avin! rendered @ years o- servi$e as p%ant p+ysi$ian by
virtue o- severa% reneed retainer a!ree#ents.
Iss!.- )O? t+ere e/ist an e#p%oyer"e#p%oyee re%ations+ip
beteen t+e parties
!/in"-
T+e $ourt, in deter#inin! t+e e/isten$e o- an e#p%oyer"
e#p%oyee re%ations+ip, +as invariab%y ad+ered to t+e -our"-o%d test7
314 t+e se%e$tion and en!a!e#ent o- t+e e#p%oyee> 394 t+e
pay#ent o- a!es> 334 t+e poer o- dis#issa%> and 3D4 t+e poer
to $ontro% t+e e#p%oyee,s $ondu$t.
T+e *ourt a!rees it+ t+e <ndin! o- t+e ;abor &rbiter
and t+e ?;R* t+at t+e $ir$u#stan$es o- t+is $ase s+o t+at no
e#p%oyer"e#p%oyee re%ations+ip e/ist beteen t+e parties, t+ey
$orre$t%y -ound t+at petitioner $o#pany %a$'ed t+e poer o- $ontro%
over t+e per-or#an$e by respondent o- +is duties. T+e ;abor
&rbiter reasoned t+at t+e *o#pre+ensive Medi$a% P%an, +i$+
$ontains t+e respondent,s ob=e$tives, duties and ob%i!ations, does
not te%% respondent G+o to $ondu$t +is p+ysi$a% e/a#ination, +o
to i##uniCe, or +o to dia!nose and treat +is patients, e#p%oyees
o- $o#pany, in ea$+ $ase.H
In eFe$t, t+e ;abor &rbiter +e%d t+at petitioner $o#pany,
t+rou!+ t+e *o#pre+ensive Medi$a% P%an, provided !uide%ines
#ere%y to ensure t+at t+e end resu%t as a$+ieved, but did not
$ontro% t+e #eans and #et+ods by +i$+ respondent per-or#ed
+is assi!ned tas's.
T+e ?;R* a1r#ed t+e <ndin!s o- t+e ;abor &rbiter and
stated t+at it is pre$ise%y be$ause t+e $o#pany %a$'s t+e poer o-
$ontro% t+at t+e $ontra$t provides t+at respondent s+a%% be dire$t%y
responsib%e to t+e e#p%oyee $on$erned and t+eir dependents -or
any in=ury, +ar# or da#a!e $aused t+rou!+ pro-essiona%
ne!%i!en$e, in$o#peten$e or ot+er va%id $auses o- a$tion.
In addition, t+e *ourt <nds t+at t+e s$+edu%e o- or' and
t+e re0uire#ent to be on $a%% -or e#er!en$y $ases do not a#ount
to su$+ $ontro%, but are ne$essary in$idents to t+e Retainers+ip
&!ree#ent. T+e *ourt a!rees t+at t+ere is not+in! ron! it+ t+e
e#p%oy#ent o- respondent as a retained p+ysi$ian o- petitioner
$o#pany and up+o%ds t+e va%idity o- t+e Retainers+ip &!ree#ent
+i$+ $%ear%y stated t+at no e#p%oye"e#p%oyee re%ations+ip
e/isted beteen t+e parties. *onsiderin! t+at t+ere is no e#p%oyer"
e#p%oyee re%ations+ip beteen t+e parties, t+e ter#ination o- t+e
Retainers+ip &!ree#ent , +i$+ is a$$ordan$e it+ t+e provisions
o- t+e &!ree#ent, does not $onstitute i%%e!a% dis#issa% o-
respondent.
San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC April 16, 2008 G.R. No.
146121-22 551 SCRA 410
a!t"#
Ernesto Ibias (respondent) was employed by petitioner SMC as a
CRO operator in its Metal Closure and Lithography Plant. e !ontinuously
wor"ed therein until he ad#an!ed as $amati! operator. e was also an
a!ti#e and militant member o% a labor organi&ation !alled Ila" 'u"lod
Manggagawa (I'M)(SMC Chapter.
)!!ording to SMC*s Poli!y on Employee Condu!t+ absen!es
without permission or ),OPs+ whi!h are absen!es not !o#ered either by a
!erti%i!ation o% the plant do!tor that the employee was absent due to
si!"ness or by duly appro#ed appli!ation %oe lea#e o% absen!e %iled atleast -
days prior to the intended lea#e+ are sub.e!t to dis!iplinary a!tion. /he same
Poli!y on Employee Condu!t also punishes %alsi%i!ation o% !ompany re!ords
or do!uments with dis!harge or termination %or the %irst o%%ense i% the
o%%ender himsel% or somebody else bene%its %rom %alsi%i!ation or would ha#e
bene%ited i% %alsi%i!ation is not %ound on time.
Respondent in!urred absen!es. 0or his absen!es on 1+ 2 and 33
4anuary and 15 and 16 )pril+ he was gi#en a written warning that he had
already in!urred 7 ),OPs. 0or his absen!es on 15 and 16 )pril and 8 and 5
May+ he was alleged to ha#e %alsi%ied his medi!al !onsultation !ard by stating
therein that he was granted si!" lea#e by the plant !lini! on said dates when
in truth he was not. Respondent was re9uired to state in writing why he
should not be sub.e!t to dis!iplinary a!tion+ he then submitted handwritten
e:planation to the !harges.
;ot satis%ied with the e:planation+ SMC !ondu!ted an
administrati#e in#estigation. )%ter the !ompletion o% the in#estigation+ SMC
!on!luded that respondent !ommitted the o%%enses o% e:!essi#e ),OP and
%alsi%i!ation o% !ompany re!ords or do!uments+ and a!!ordingly dismissed
him. Respondent %iled a !omplaint %or illegal dismissal against SMC.
$""ue# ,O; Ibias was illegally dismissed.
Ruling#
,hen SMC imposed the penalty o% dismissal %or the 31
th
and
3<
th
),OPs+ it was a!ting well within its rights as an employer. )n employer
has the prerogati#e to pres!ribe reasonable rules and regulations ne!essary
%or the proper !ondu!t o% its business+ to pro#ide !ertain dis!iplinary
measures in order to implement said rules and to assure that the same
would be !omplied with. )n employer en.oys a wide latitude o% dis!retion in
the promulgation o% poli!ies+ rules and regulations on wor"(related a!ti#ities
o% the employees.
It is a:iomati! that appropriate dis!iplinary san!tion is within the
pur#iew o% management imposition. /hus+ in the implementation o% its rules
and poli!ies+ the employer has the !hoi!e to do so stri!tly or not+ sin!e this is
inherent in its right to !ontrol and manage its business e%%e!ti#ely.
Conse9uently+ management has the prerogati#e to impose san!tions lighter
than those spe!i%i!ally pres!ribed by its rules+ or to !ondone !ompletely the
#iolations o% its erring employees. O% !ourse+ this prerogati#e must be
e:er!ised %ree o% gra#e abuse o% dis!retion+ bearing in mind the
re9uirements o% .usti!e and %air play.
)ll told+ we %ind SMC a!ted well within its rights when it dismissed
respondent %or his numerous absen!es. Respondent was a%%orded due
pro!ess and was #alidly dismissed %or !ause.
Ar.no, Jr. v. S42ca1/. PCC5Ba"!io F.1r!ar2 +,
&'%' G.. No. %*'$'& (%% SCA )&%
Fac#s-
5is$ip%inary a$tion a!ainst an errin! e#p%oyee is a
#ana!e#ent prero!ative +i$+, !enera%%y, is not a sub=e$t to
=udi$ia% inter-eren$e. .oever, t+is po%i$y $an be =usti<ed on%y i-
t+e dis$ip%inary a$tion is di$tated by %e!iti#ate business reasons
and is not oppressive.
On January 1E, 199A, petitioner as e#p%oyed as a $ab%e
te$+ni$ian by respondent S'y$ab%e P**"(a!uio. On January 1E,
9229, an a$$ountin! $%er' o- respondent, .aya$int+ Soriano
3Soriano4, sent to t+e +u#an resour$e #ana!er a %etter"$o#p%aint
a!ainst petitioner a%%e!in! t+at on to separate o$$asions, t+e
%atter spread -a%se ru#ors about +er. On January 9E, 9229, s+e as
a!ain insu%ted by petitioner +en t+e %atter approa$+ed +er and
said t+at s+e as seen !oin! out it+ &%drin Estrada, t+eir <e%d
supervisor and uttered Ikaw lang ang nakakaalam ng totoo it+
#a%i$ious intent and in provo$ative #anner. Soriano averred t+at
petitioner,s uns$rupu%ous be+aviour $onstituted serious and !rave
oFense in vio%ation o- t+e $o#pany,s *ode o- 5is$ip%ine.
On t+e sa#e day, respondent issued a Me#orandu#
re0uirin! petitioner to sub#it an e/p%anation it+in E@ +ours -ro#
noti$e t+ereo-. Petitioner sub#itted +is ritten"e/p%anation denyin!
a%% a%%e!ations in Soriano,s %etter"$o#p%aint. &n ad#inistrative
investi!ation as a$$ordin!%y $ondu$ted. T+e investi!atin!
$o##ittee -ound petitioner !ui%ty #ade #a%i$ious state#ents
a!ainst Soriano +i$+ is $ate!oriCed as an oFense under t+e
*o#pany *ode o- 5is$ip%ine.
*onse0uent%y, petitioner as suspended -or 3 days it+out
pay, +oever, petitioner sti%% reported -or or'. (y reason t+ereo-,
respondent sent petitioner a %etter deno#inated as 1
st
?oti$e o-
Ter#ination. Petitioner in0uired -ro# respondent +et+er +e is
a%ready dis#issed or #ere%y suspended sin$e +e as re-used entry
to t+e $o#pany pre#ises but t+e respondent rep%ied t+at +e as
#ere%y suspended. Petitioner t+en rote to respondent re0uestin!
-or -urt+er investi!ation on +is a%%e!ed a$t o- spreadin! ru#ors but
+is re0uest as denied.
Petitioner sub#itted to respondent +is ritten e/p%anation
averrin! t+at +e sti%% reported -or or' on t+e <rst day o- +is
suspension be$ause t+e a$$usation o- Soriano is base%ess and +er
testi#ony is +earsay. Petitioner as dis#issed -ro# servi$e on t+e
!round o- insubordination or i%-u% disobedien$e in $o#p%yin! it+
t+e suspension order.
Petitioner <%ed a $o#p%aint a!ainst t+e respondent
assai%in! t+e %e!a%ity o- +is suspension and eventua% dis#issa%. .e
$%ai#ed t+at +is suspension and dis#issa% ere eFe$ted it+out
any basis, and t+at +e as denied in +is ri!+t to due pro$ess.
Iss!.- )O? &reno Jr. as i%%e!a%%y dis#issed.
!/in"-
?o. T+e de$ision to suspend petitioner as rendered
a-ter investi!ation and a <ndin! by respondent t+at petitioner +as
indeed #ade #a%i$ious state#ents a!ainst a $o"e#p%oyee. T+e
suspension as i#posed due to a repeated in-ra$tion it+in a
dea$tivation period set by t+e $o#pany re%atin! to previous si#i%ar
oFense $o##itted. It is a/io#ati$ t+at appropriate dis$ip%inary
san$tion is it+in t+e purvie o- #ana!e#ent i#position. )+at
s+ou%d not be over%oo'ed is t+e prero!ative o- an e#p%oyer
$o#pany to pres$ribe reasonab%e ru%es and re!u%ations ne$essary
-or t+e proper $ondu$t o- its business and to provide $ertain
dis$ip%inary #easures in order to i#p%e#ent said ru%es to assure
t+at t+e sa#e ou%d be $o#p%ied it+. Respondent t+en a$ted
it+in its ri!+ts as an e#p%oyer +en it de$ided to e/er$ise its
#ana!e#ent prero!ative to i#pose dis$ip%inary #easure on its
errin! e#p%oyee.
&s a =ust $ause -or dis#issa% o- an e#p%oyee under
&rti$%e 9:9 o- t+e ;abor *ode, i%-u% disobedien$e o- t+e
e#p%oyer,s %a-u% orders re0uires t+e $on$urren$e o- to
e%e#ents7 94 t+e e#p%oyee,s assai%ed $ondu$t #ust +ave been
i%-u%> and 92 t+e order vio%ated #ust +ave been reasonab%e,
%a-u%, #ade 'non to t+e e#p%oyee, and #ust pertain to t+e
duties +i$+ +e +ad been en!a!ed to dis$+ar!e. (ot+ re0uisites
are present in t+e instant $ase.
%anto&a v. SCA '(giene %ro)u!t" April 2*, 2010 G.R
16*554 61+ SCRA 216
a!t"#
Respondent+ a !orporation engaged in the manu%a!ture+ sale+ and
distribution o% industrial paper and tissue produ!ts+ employed petitioner as a
utility man. Petitioner was e#entually assigned at respondent*s Paper Mill
;o. 2+ the se!tion whi!h manu%a!tures the !ompany*s industrial paper
produ!ts+ as a ba!" tender in !harge o% the proper operation o% the se!tion*s
ma!hineries.
In a ;oti!e o% /rans%er+ respondent in%ormed the petitioner o% its
reorgani&ation plan and o%%ered hima position at Paper Mill ;o. 7 under the
same terms and !onditions o% employment in anti!ipation o% the e#entual
!losure and permanent shutdown o% Paper Mill ;o. 2. /he !losure and
!on!omitant reorgani&ation is in line with respondent*s de!ision to streamline
and ha#e out the !ompany*s industrial paper manu%a!turing operations due
to %inan!ial di%%i!ulties brought about by the low #olume o% sales and orders
%or industrial paper produ!ts. owe#er petitioner re.e!ted the trans%er+ thus a
noti!e o% termination o% employment was sent as his position was de!alred
redundant by the !losure o% Paper Mill ;o. 2.
Petitioner %iled a !omplaint %or illegal dismissal against respondent
assailing his termination as without any #alid !ause. e a#erred that the
alleged redundan!y ne#er o!!urred as there was no permanent shutdown o%
Paper Mill no. 2 due to its !ontinuous operation sin!e his termination. In its
de%ense+ respondent re%uted petitioner*s !laim o% illegal dismissal. It argued
that petitioner has #oluntarily separated himsel% %rom ser#i!e by opting to
a#ail o% the separation bene%its o% the !ompany instead o% a!!epting
reassignment=trans%er to another position o% e9ual ran" and pay.
$""ue# ,O; petitioner was illegally dismissed.
Ruling#
;o. Respondent*s right o% management prerogati#e was e:er!ised
in good %aith.
In this !ase+ the abolishment o% Paper Mill ;o. 2 was undoubtedly
a business .udgment arri#ed at in the %a!e o% the low demand %or the
produ!tion o% industrial paper at the time. >espite an apparent reason to
implement a retren!hment program as a !ost(!utting measure+ respondent+
howe#er+ did not outrightly dismiss the wor"ers a%%e!ted by the !losure o%
Paper Mill ;o. 2 but ga#e them an option to be trans%erred to post o% e9ual
ran" and pay. )s !an be seen+ retren!hment was utili&ed by respondent only
as an a#ailable option in !ase the e%%e!ted employee would not want to be
trans%erred. Respondent did not pro!eed dire!tly to retren!h. /his+ to our
mind+ is an indi!ation o% good %aith on respondent*s part as it e:hausted
other possible measures other than retren!hment.
'esides+ the employer*s prerogati#e to bring down labor !osts by
retren!hing must be e:er!ised essentially as a measure o% last resort+ a%ter
less drasti! means ha#e been tried and %ound wanting. ?i#ing the wor"ers
an option to be trans%erred without any diminution in ran" and pay
spe!i%i!ally belie petitioner*s allegation that the alleged streamlining s!heme
was implemented as a ploy to ease out employees+ thus+ the absen!e o% bad
%aith. )pparently+ respondent implemented its streamlining or reorgani&ation
plan with good %aith+ not in an arbitrary manner and without pre.udi!ing the
tenurial rights o% its employees.