Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. PLDT Company Inc.

GR No. 190389, April 19, 2017

FACTS:

On June 27, 2002, the labor organization Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa

Pilipinas (MKP), which represented the employees of PLDT, filed a notice of strike with
the NCMB. MKP charged PLDT with unfair labor practice for transferring several
employees of its Provisioning Support Division to Bicutan, Taguig, in violation of the duty
to bargain collectively in good faith. This was due to the redeployment measures done by
PLDT to accommodate employees from the abolition of certain divisions as part of its
redundancy program it implemented. PLDT declared only 323 employees as redundant
as it was able to redeploy 180 of the 503 affected employees to other positions.

On October 28, 2005, the NLRC dismissed MKP’s charges of unfair labor practices
against PLDT ruling that PLDT’s redundancy program in 2002 was valid and did not
constitute unfair legal practice. The redundancy program was due to the decline of
subscribers for long distance calls and to fixed line services produced by technological
advances in the communications industry. The NLRC ruled that the termination of
employment of PLDT’s employees due to redundancy was legal.

The CA affirmed the NLRC because PLDT was transparent and forthright in its
implementation of the redundancy program. PLDT also successfully redeployed 180 of
the 503 affected employees to other positions.

ISSUE:
Did PLDT commit unfair labor practice when it implemented its redundancy
program?

RULING: NO.

Redundancy is one of the authorized causes for the termination of employment

provided for in Article 298 of the Labor Code. Redundancy exists when the services of an
employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of
the enterprise.

While a declaration of redundancy is ultimately a management decision in

exercising its business judgment, and the employer is not obligated to keep in its payroll
more employees than are needed for its day to-day operations, management must not
violate the law nor declare redundancy without sufficient basis.

PLDT’s declaration of redundancy was backed by substantial evidence showing a

consistent decline for operator-assisted calls for both local and international calls because
of cheaper alternatives like direct dialing services, and the growth of wireless
communication. Redundancy is ultimately a management prerogative, and the wisdom or
soundness of such business judgment is not subject to discretionary review by labor
tribunals or even this Court, as long as the law was followed and malicious or arbitrary
action was not shown. Since the redundancy program of PLDT was valid, then there was
no unfair labor practice committed by it.