SPI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v.

MAPUA
G.R. No. 191154. April 7, 2014

PETITIONER/S: SPI Technologies, Inc.; Lea Villanueva

RESPONDENT/S: Victoria K. Mapua

FACTS:
 Mapua was hired by SPI Technologies, Inc. in 2003 and held the position of Corporate Development’s
Research/Business Intelligence Unit Head and Manager.
 In August 2006, her supervisor, Maquera, hired another employee, Elizabeth Nolan, as Mapua’s supervisor.
 In October 2006, Mapua’s laptop crashed, causing her to lose files and data.
 On November 13, 2006, Nolan informed Mapua that her position was being realigned and she would become a
subordinate of another manager, Raina, due to missing a work deadline.
o Despite the fact that Mapua was able to retrieve the lost data with the assistance of the NBI.
 Mapua’s colleagues began to ostracize and avoid her, and she lost 95% of her work projects and responsibilities.
o Mapua consulted with SPI’s Human Resource Director, Villanueva, about transferring to another
department but no action was taken.
 On February 28, 2007, Mapua allegedly saw the new table of organization of the Corporate Development Division
which would be renamed as the Marketing Division.
o The new structure showed that Mapua’s level will be again downgraded because a new manager will be
hired and positioned between her rank and Raina’s
 On March 21, 2007, Mapua was informed over the phone that her position was considered redundant and she
was terminated from employment immediately.
o Mapua filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter.
 On May 13, 2007, a recruitment advertisement of SPI was published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer which listed
all vacancies in SPI, including a position for Marketing Communications Manager under Corporate Support – the
same group where Mapua previously belonged.
 Mapua submitted an affidavit that the employer used the services of an employment agency to search for
applicants for the Corporate Development Manager.
o Because of these developments, Mapua was convinced that her former position is not redundant.
o According to her, she underwent psychiatric counseling and incurred medical expenses as a result of
emotional anguish, sleepless nights, humiliation and shame from being jobless.
 LABOR ARBITER RULING: rendered a decision in favor of Mapua and declared that her dismissal was illegal.
 NLRC RULING: reversed the lower court’s ruling because it is not for Mapua to determine whether the position is
one that is considered redundant. It is essentially lies within the sound business management.
 CA RULING: reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

ISSUE: Whether Mapua’s termination was legal based on the grounds of redundancy. (NO)

RULING:
NO. Mapua’s termination was not legal and the elements of redundancy to validly terminate an employee was not
complied with.

The Supreme Court have pronounced that for a valid implementation of a redundancy program, the employer must
comply with the following requisites:
(1) written notice served on both the employee and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of
termination;
(2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of
service, whichever is higher;
(3) good faith in abolishing the redundant position; and
(4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant.

Anent the first requirement which is written notice served on both the employee and the DOLE at least one month prior to
the intended date of termination, SPI had discharged the burden of proving that it submitted a notice to the DOLE on
March 21, 2007, stating therein that the effective date of termination is on April 21, 2007. It is, however, quite peculiar that
two kinds of notices were served to Mapua. One termination letter stated that its date of effectivity is on the same day,
March 21, 2007. The other termination letter sent through mail to Mapua’s residence stated that the effective date of her
termination is on April 21, 2007.

Moreover, in connection with the evidence negating redundancy was SPI’s publication of job vacancies after Mapua was
terminated from employment. SPI maintained that the CA erred when it considered Mapua’s self-serving affidavit as
regards the Prime Manpower advertisement because the allegations therein were based on Mapua’s unfounded
suspicions. Also, the failure of Mapua to present a sworn statement of the personnel of the recruitment agency renders
the former’s statements hearsay.
Even if we disregard Mapua’s affidavit as regards the Prime Manpower advertisement, SPI admitted that it caused
the Inquirer advertisement for a Marketing Communications Manager position.47 Mapua alleged that this
advertisement belied the claim of SPI that her position is redundant because the Corporate Development division
was only renamed to Marketing division.

Furthermore, on the assumption that the functions of a Marketing Communications Manager are different from that of a
Corporate Development Manager, it was not even discussed why Mapua was not considered for the position. While SPI
had no legal duty to hire Mapua as a Marketing Communications Manager, it could have clarified why she is not qualified
for that position. In fact, Mapua brought up the subject of transfer to Villanueva and Raina several times prior to her
termination but to no avail. There was even no showing that Mapua could not perform the duties of a Marketing
Communications Manager.

What the above reasoning of the NLRC failed to perceive is that "[o]f primordial consideration is not the nomenclature or
title given to the employee, but the nature of his functions." "It is not the job title but the actual work that the employee
performs." Also, change in the job title is not synonymous to a change in the functions. A position cannot be abolished by
a mere change of job title. In cases of redundancy, the management should adduce evidence and prove that a
position which was created in place of a previous one should pertain to functions which are dissimilar and
incongruous to the abolished office.

In summary, the termination is illegal because SPI filed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Mapua’s position was
redundant. Moreover, SPI’s contention was contradictory when they decided to publish a job advertisement for a position
in the same department after Mapua was terminated. Thus, the employer SPI violated Mapua’s rights to procedural due
process by making her termination effective on the same day she was notified of it.