LABOR STANDARDS CASE READINGS
1
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION CORPORATION VS. VIOLETA L. VIAJAR
FACTS General Milling Corporation terminated the services of thirteen (13) of its employees on the grounds of REDUNDANCY. Said company claims that they had been gradually downsizing its “
Visayas-Mindanao operations in Cebu which had been filled with a number of redundant positions over a period of time. Violeta Viajar was hired as Invoicing Clerk by the company in 1979, and thereafter held various positions. Viajar was among those thirteen employees terminated from work. On October 30, 2003, the HRD Manager (Johhny Almocera) informed Viajar, through a LETTERMEMO that the latter s services are no longer needed effective NOVEMBER 30, 2003. This is ’
because her current position as Purchasing Staff at the Purchasing group Cebu Operations was deemed redundant. When Viajar reported for work the following day, the on-duty guard of the company barred her from entering the office premises. Viajar was also denied access to her office computer and resctricted from punching her DTR in the bundy clock. On November 7, 2003, she was invited to the HRD Cebu Office where she was asked to sign an Application for Retirement and Benefits. Almocer (HRD manager) told her that such was required in order to process her separation pay. Meanwhile, Viajar observed that between the period of July and October 2003, General Milling hired fifteen (15) new employees. In lieu of the aforementioned events, Viajar filed a case of ILLEGAL DISMISSAL, with claims for damages and separation pay, against General Milling. The GMC averred that (1) Viajar s ’
dismissal was due to redundancy of her position and the economic setbacks the company is suffering at the moment, and that such act is part of the company s cost reduction measure; (2) ’
GMC presented the required Establishment Termination Report (involving the matter of “
”
employment termination of Viajar and the other 13 employees) which it filed before the DOLE; and (3) that GMC issued two (2) checks amounting to Php 440,253.02 and Php 21,211.35, respectively as Viajar s separation pay. ’
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that GMC is not liable, hence, dismissing the illegal dismissal case. The NLRC likewise affirmed the LA s decision, but with a modification ordering GMC to give ’
Viajar separation pay. pay. Viajar appealed appealed to the Court of Appeals. CA reversed the decision of the NLRC. Aggrieved by the CA decision, GMC petitioned before the Honorable Supreme Court.
Compiled by: | TINA SIUAGAN
1
LABOR STANDARDS CASE READINGS
2
ISSUE Whether or not Viajar was terminated from her employment based on a justifiable cause (i.e. based on redundancy).
RULE/LAW APPLICABLE Article 282 of the Labor Code. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel . The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the instalment of laborsaving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking, unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the worker and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. Xxx
APPLICATION OF THE RULE/LAW As held by the SC, the test of whether compliance to Article 283 of the Labor Code had been achieved or not is dependent on the following: (a) Service of written notice to the affected employees and the DOLE at least a month before the intended date of retrenchment; (b) Payment of separation pay to the affected employees; (c) Abolition of the redundant position should be done in good faith; (d) Fair and reasonable criteria shall be set in ascertaining which positions are deemed redundant and may be abolished. Based on the facts, the Court ruled that the GMC failed to substantiate its claim that it terminated Viajar from employment based on justifiable grounds, particularly invoking redundancy. Notwithstanding the company s presentation of the notices required of and the ’
issuance of checks representing the alleged payment of Viajar s separation pay, the former was ’
unable to show that the termination of employment was done in lieu of fair and reasonable “
Compiled by: | TINA SIUAGAN
2
LABOR STANDARDS CASE READINGS
3
criteria , by showing clear evidence to substantiate the presence of redundancy within the ”
company. (Read page nine of the actual decision for a more in-depth discussion.) . discussion.) . Further, the SC appreciated the presence of bad faith in GMC s end as exemplified by the following: ’
(a) It demanded Viajar to sign an Application of Retirement Benefis despite the fact that her case involved redundancy, and which negates the GMC s averment that Viajar was ’
terminated due to redundancy ;
“
”
(b) It prohibited Viajar from entering the company premises even before the effectivity of the date of her termination from work
DISPOSITION OF THE HONORABLE COURT: Wherefore, the petition is DENIED. The decision dated September 21, 2007 of the Court of Appeals, as well as its Resolution dated January 30, 2008 in CA-GR SP no. 01734, are hereby AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED.
Compiled by: | TINA SIUAGAN
3
