Almodiel v NLRC. 1993. My Digest

7/21/2019 Almodiel v NLRC. 1993. My Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/almodiel-v-nlrc-1993-my-digest 1/3

FARLE P. ALMODIEL, petitioner vs. NLRC, RAYTHEON PHILS., INC., respondents, G.R.No. 100641 June 14, 1993

THE CASE Subject of this petition for certiorari is the March 1991 decision of the NationalLabor Relations Commission which reversed and set aside the Labor rbiter!s decision andordered instead the pa"ment of separation pa" and financial assistance of #1$$,$$$.$$.

#etitioner imputes %rave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission and pra"s forthe reinstatement of the Labor rbiter!s decision which declared his termination on the%round of redundanc" ille%al.

FACTS #etitioner &. lmodiel, a C#, was hired as Cost ccountin% Mana%er of Ra"theon#hilippines, 'nc. (e started as a probationar" or temporar" emplo"ee. (is major duties

were) *1+ plan, coordinate and carr" out "ear end and ph"sical inventor"- *+ formulate andissue out hard copies of Standard #roduct costin% and other cost/pricin% anal"sis if neededand re0uired and *+ set up the written Cost ccountin% S"stem for the whole compan".fter a few months, he was %iven a re%ulari2ation increase of #1,3$$.$$ a month.

4n u%ust 15, 1966, he recommended and submitted a Cost ccountin%/&inance

Reor%ani2ation, affectin% the whole finance %roup but the same was disapproved b" theController. (owever, he was assured b" the Controller that should his position ordepartment which was apparentl" a oneman department with no staff becomes untenableor unable to deliver the needed service due to manpower constraint, he would be %iven athree *+ "ear advance notice.

4n 7anuar" 5, 1969, petitioner was summoned b" his immediate boss and in the presenceof 'R8 Mana%er, Mr. Rolando strada, he was told of the abolition of his position on the%round of redundanc". (e pleaded with mana%ement to defer its action or transfer him toanother department, but he was told that the decision of mana%ement was final and that thesame has been conve"ed to the 8epartment of Labor and mplo"ment. :hus, he wasconstrained to file the complaint for ille%al dismissal before the rbitration ;ranch of the

National Capital Re%ion, NLRC, 8epartment of Labor and mplo"ment.

L!"o# A#"$%e#&' Ru($n) 1969 Labor rbiter declared that complainant!stermination on the %round of redundanc" is hi%hl" irre%ular and without le%al and factualbasis, thus orderin% the respondents to reinstate complainant to his former position with fullbac<wa%es without lost of seniorit" ri%hts and other benefits. Respondents are furtherordered to pa" complainant #$$,$$$.$$ as moral dama%es and #$,$$$.$$ as e=emplar"dama%es, plus ten percent *1$>+ of the total award as attorne"!s fees.

Ra"theon appealed on the %rounds that the Labor rbiter committed %rave abuse ofdiscretion in den"in% its ri%hts to dismiss petitioner on the %round of redundanc", in rel"in%on baseless surmises and selfservin% assertions of the petitioner that its act was tainted

with malice and bad faith and in awardin% moral and e=emplar" dama%es and attorne"!sfees.

NLRC&' Ru($n) 1991 the NLRC reversed the decision and directed Ra"theon topa" petitioner the total sum of #1$$,$$$.$$ as separation pa"/financial assistance.

ISS*ES 1. ?hether NLRC committed %rave abuse of discretion amountin% to *lac< of+ or ine=cess of jurisdiction in declarin% as valid and justified the termination of petitioner on the%round of redundanc".

1



. ?hether bad faith, malice and irre%ularit" crept in the abolition of petitioner!sposition of Cost ccountin% Mana%er on the %round of redundanc".

R*LING

1. No. :here is no dispute that petitioner was dul" advised, one *1+ month before, of thetermination of his emplo"ment on the %round of redundanc" in a written notice b" hisimmediate superior in 7anuar" 5, 1969. (e was issued a chec< representin% separationpa" but in view of his refusal to ac<nowled%e the notice and the chec<, the" were sent tohim thru re%istered mail on 7anuar" $, 1969. :he 8epartment of Labor and mplo"ment

was served a cop" of the notice of termination of petitioner in accordance with the pertinentprovisions of the Labor Code and the implementin% rules.

. No. ?hether petitioner!s functions as Cost ccountin% Mana%er have been dispensed with or merel" absorbed b" another is however immaterial. &or even concedin% that thefunctions of petitioner!s position were merel" transferred, no malice or bad faith can beimputed from said act. This Court said that redundancy, for purposes of our Labor Code,exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. The characterization of an employee's servicesas no longer necessary or sustainable, and therefore, properly terminable, was an exercise

of business udgment on the part of the employer. The wisdom or soundness of suchcharacterization or decision was not subect to discretionary review on the part of the Labor !rbiter nor of the "L#C so long, of course, as violation of law or merely arbitrary and malicious action is not shown.

'ndeed, an emplo"er has no le%al obli%ation to <eep more emplo"ees than are necessar"for the operation of its business. #etitioner does not dispute the fact that a cost accountin%s"stem was installed and used at Ra"theon subsidiaries and plants worldwide- and that thefunctions of his position involve the submission of periodic reports utili2in% computeri2edforms desi%ned and prescribed b" the head office with the installation of said accountin%s"stem. #etitioner attempts to controvert these realities b" alle%in% that some of thefunctions of his position were still indispensable and were actuall" dispersed to another

department. ?hat these indispensable functions that were dispersed, he failed however, tospecif" and point out. ;esides, the fact that the functions of a position were simpl" added tothe duties of another does not affect the le%itimac" of the emplo"er!s ri%ht to abolish aposition when done in the normal e=ercise of its prero%ative to adopt sound businesspractices in the mana%ement of its affairs.

Considerin% further that petitioner held a position which was definitel" mana%erial incharacter, Ra"theon had a broad latitude of discretion in abolishin% his position. nemplo"er has a much wider discretion in terminatin% emplo"ment relationship of mana%erialpersonnel compared to ran< and file emplo"ees. :he reason is that officers in such <e"positions perform not onl" functions which b" nature re0uire the emplo"er!s full trust andconfidence but also functions that spell the success or failure of an enterprise.

• #etitioner claims that the functions of his position were absorbed b" the

#a"roll/Mis/&inance 8epartment under n% :an Chai, a resident alien without an" wor<in% permit from the 84L as re0uired b" law. lmodiel also claims that he isbetter 0ualified than n% :an Chai, a ;.S. 'ndustrial n%ineer, hired merel" as aS"stems nal"st #ro%rammer or its e0uivalent in earl" 1965, promoted as M'SMana%er onl" durin% the middle part of 1966 and a resident alien.

• 4n the other hand, Ra"theon insists that petitioner!s functions as Cost ccountin%

Mana%er had not been absorbed b" n% :an Chai, a permanent resident born in

2



this countr". 't claims to have established below that n% :an Chai did not displacepetitioner or absorb his functions and duties as the" were occup"in% entirel"different and distinct positions re0uirin% different sets of e=pertise or 0ualificationsand dischar%in% functions alto%ether different and forei%n from that of petitioner!sabolished position.

8estitute of merit is petitioner!s imputation of unlawful discrimination when Ra"theon causedcorollar" functions appertainin% to cost accountin% to be absorbed b" 8ann" n% :an Chai,a resident alien without a wor<in% permit. rticle @$ of the Labor Code which re0uiresemplo"ment permit refers to non$resident aliens. :he emplo"ment permit is re0uired forentr" into the countr" for emplo"ment purposes and is issued after determination of the nonavailabilit" of a person in the #hilippines who is competent, able and willin% at the time ofapplication to perform the services for which the alien is desired. Since n% :an Chai is aresident alien, he does not fall within the ambit of the provision.

#etitioner also assails that he is better 0ualified for the position. 't should be noted,however, that n% :an Chai was promoted to the position durin% the middle part of 1966 orbefore the abolition of petitioner!s position in earl" 1969. ;esides the fact that n% :anChai!s promotion thereto is a settled matter, it has been consistentl" held that an objectionfounded on the %round that one has better credentials over the appointee is frowned uponso lon% as the latter possesses the minimum 0ualifications for the position. 'n the case atbar, since petitioner does not alle%e that n% :an Chai does not 0ualif" for the position, theCourt cannot substitute its discretion and jud%ment for that which is clearl" and e=clusivel"mana%ement prero%ative.

't is a wellsettled rule that labor laws do not authori2e interference with the emplo"er!s jud%ment in the conduct of his business. :he determination of the 0ualification and fitness of wor<ers for hirin% and firin%, promotion or reassi%nment are e=clusive prero%atives ofmana%ement. :he Labor Code and its implementin% Rules do not vest in the Labor rbitersnor in the different 8ivisions of the NLRC *nor in the courts+ mana%erial authorit". :heemplo"er is free to determine, usin% his own discretion and business jud%ment, all elementsof emplo"ment, Afrom hirin% to firin%A e=cept in cases of unlawful discrimination or those

which ma" be provided b" law.

NOTES: Termination of an employee's services because of redundancy is governed by !rticle %& of the Labor Code which provides as follows(

rt. 6. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel . B :he emplo"erma" also terminate the emplo"ment of an" emplo"ee due to installation of laborsavin% devices, redundanc", retrenchment to prevent losses or the closin% orcessation of operation of the establishment or underta<in% unless the closin% isfor the purpose of circumventin% the provisions of this :itle, b" servin% a writtennotice on the wor<er and the 8epartment of Labor and mplo"ment at least one*1+ month before the intended date thereof. 'n case of termination due toinstallation of laborsavin% devices or redundanc", the wor<er affected thereb"shall be entitled to a separation pa" e0uivalent to at least one *1+ month pa" forever" "ear of service, whichever is hi%her. 'n case of retrenchment to preventlosses and in cases of closure or cessation of operations of establishment orunderta<in% not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, theseparation pa" shall be e0uivalent to at least one *1+ month pa" or at least onehalf *1/+ month pa" for ever" "ear of service, whichever is hi%her. fraction of atleast si= *3+ months shall be considered as one *1+ whole "ear.

3

Documents

Almodiel v NLRC. 1993. My Digest