G.R. No.

184885 March 7, 2012

ERNESTO G. YMBONG, Petitioner, v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, VENERANDA SY
AND DANTE LUZON, Respondents.
FACTS:
Since 1993, Ymbong worked for ABS-CBN in its regional station in Cebu as a television talent, co-anchoring
Hoy Gising and TV Patrol Cebu. He also worked as as drama and voice talent, spinner, scriptwriter and public affairs
program anchor in its AM station DYAB. Leandro Patalinghug was a talent, director and scriptwriter for various radio
programs aired over DYAB.
In 1996, ABS-CBN Head Office in Manila issued Policy No. HR-ER-016 or the Policy on Employees Seeking
Public Office:
1.

Any employee who intends to run for any public office position, must file his/her letter
of resignation, at least thirty (30) days prior to the official filing of the certificate of candidacy
either for national or local election.

xxxx
3. Further, any employee who intends to join a political group/party or even with no political
affiliation but who intends to openly and aggressively campaign for a candidate or group
of candidates (e.g. publicly speaking/endorsing candidate, recruiting campaign workers, etc.)
must file a request for leave of absence subject to managements approval. For this
particular reason, the employee should file the leave request at least thirty (30) days prior to the
start of the planned leave period.
Because of the impending May 1998 elections, Dante Luzon, Assistant Station Manager of DYAB issued a
Memorandum:
any employee/talent who wants to run for any position in the coming election will have to file a leave of
absence the moment he/she files his/her certificate of candidacy.
The services rendered by the concerned employee/talent to this company will then be temporarily suspended
for the entire campaign/election period.
Upon double-checking, Luzon learned that the policy actually required suspension for those who intend to
campaign for a political party or candidate and resignation for those who will actually run in the elections.
Ymbong & Patalinghug ran during the elections, but both lost. They tried to go back to their work in ABS-CBN,
which out of liberality, allowed them to work but only to wind up their participation in their hit radio drama
Nagbabagang Langit. However, it seemed to went on so far so Luzon had to issue a memorandum informing them
of the termination of their services.
Ymbong & Patalinghug filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE: W/N THE POLICY NO. HR-ER-016 IS A VALID EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE
RULING: YES
ABS-CBN had a valid justification for Policy No. HR-ER-016: to protect the company from any public
misconceptions. To preserve its objectivity, neutrality and credibility. So long as a companys management
prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employers interest and not for the purpose of
defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, the Court will
uphold them.
It is well within its rights to ensure that it maintains its objectivity and credibility and freeing itself from any
appearance of impartiality so that the confidence of the viewing and listening public in it will not be in any way
eroded. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to
exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. The free will of management to conduct its own business affairs
to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.
Republic Act No. 9006, otherwise known as the Fair Election Act. Section 6.6 upheld such exercise of
management prerogative:
Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, reporter, on-air correspondent or personality

who is a candidate for any elective public office or is a campaign volunteer for or employed or retained
in any capacity by any candidate or political party shall be deemed resigned, if so required by their
employer, or shall take a leave of absence from his/her work as such during the campaign period: Provided,
That any media practitioner who is an official of a political party or a member of the campaign staff of a
candidate or political party shall not use his/her time or space to favor any candidate or political party.

G.R. No. 187713

August 1, 2012

RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK, INC., and/or MIA CONCIO, President, LEONOR LINAO, General
Manager, LOURDES ANGELES, HRD Manager, and IDA BARRAMEDA, AGM-Finance, Petitioners, vs.
RUTH F. YAP, MA. FE DAYON, MINETTE BAPTISTA, BANNIE EDSEL SAN MIGUEL, and MARISA
LEMINA,Respondents.
FACTS:
In 2004, RPN & RPN Employees Union entered into a CBA w/ a union security clause providing that a member
who has been expelled from the union shall also be terminated from the company. This CBA was valid for 5 years.
There had been a conflict between the respondents & their co-members of the union. In 2005, the RPNEUs
Grievance and Investigation Committee recommended to the unions board of directors the expulsion of the
respondents from the union. In 2006, the union wrote to RPN President Concio demanding the termination of the
respondents employment from the company.
RPN then notified the respondents that their employment would be terminated. The respondents filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal & non-payment of benefits before LA. LA ruled in their favor, ordering RPN to
reinstate them. RPN submitted a manifestation to LA that it had complied w/ the reinstatement of the respondents.
But the respondents said that there was no compliance yet & prayed that the RPN officers be cited for contempt.
Respondents said there was this instance when they went to RPN to present themselves for their actual
reinstatement. They were told that they had been reinstated but only in the payroll & RPN will endeavor to pay their
salaries despite its precarious financial condition. However, when they returned to RPN after 3 days, they were
barred from entering the RPN premises & were even manhandled. This was reported to the police. In the afternoon,
they were able to enter the RPN lobby but were taken by the guard back outside the gate pursuant to the order of
AGM for Finance Barrameda.
Respondents were allegedly again forcibly denied entry into RPN when they were to collect their 13 th month
pay. RPN reasoned out that it would be best not to allow them to enter so as to avoid untoward incidents since this
involved an intra-union dispute.
ISSUE:
W/N THE MANNER OF REINSTATING A DISMISSED EE IN THE PAYROLL IS A VALID EXERCISE OF
MANAGEMENT PREORGATIVE
RULING: YES
The third paragraph of Article 223 of the Labor Code states that the employee entitled to reinstatement "shall
either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation
or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll." Thus, even if the employee is able and raring
to return to work, the option of payroll reinstatement belongs to the employer.
The general policy of labor law is to discourage interference with an employers judgment in the conduct of his
business. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees, it must also protect the right of an employer
to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. As long as the companys exercise of judgment is in good

faith to advance its interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under the
laws or valid agreements, such exercise will be upheld.
Neither does labor law authorize the substitution of judgment of the employer in the conduct of his business,
unless it is shown to be contrary to law, morals, or public policy. The only condition is that the exercise of
management prerogatives should not be done in bad faith or with abuse of discretion.
It has been held that in case of strained relations or non-availability of positions, the employer is given the
option to reinstate the employee merely in the payroll, precisely in order to avoid the intolerable presence in the
workplace of the unwanted employee.
This option to reinstate a dismissed employee in the payroll is based on practical considerations. The employer
may insist that the dismissal of the employee was for a just and valid cause and the latters presence within its
premises is intolerable by any standard; or such presence would be inimical to its interest or would demoralize the
coemployees. Thus, while payroll reinstatement would in fact be unacceptable because it sanctions the payment of
salaries to one not rendering service, it may still be the lesser evil compared to the intolerable presence in the
workplace of an unwanted employee.
The circumstances of the present case have more than amply shown that the physical restoration of the
respondents to their former positions would be impractical and would hardly promote the best interest of both
parties. This Court has long recognized the managements right to formulate reasonable rules to regulate the conduct
of its employees for the protection of its interests.
RPN: SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE IN GOOD FAITH: salaires were paid.

G.R. Nos. 146121-22 April 16, 2008

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION & GERIBERN ABELLA, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (First Division), LABOR ARBITER PEDRO RAMOS and ERNESTO IBIAS, Respondents.
FACTS:
In 1978, Ibias started working for SMC as a CRO operator in its Metal Closure and Lithography Plant. He later
on advanced as Zamatic operator. He was also an active and militant member of a labor organization called Ilaw
Buklod Manggagawa (IBM)-SMC Chapter.
SMC has this Policy on Employee Conduct, stating that absences without permission or AWOPs, which are
absences not covered either by a certification of the plant doctor that the employee was absent due to sickness or by a
duly approved application for leave of absence filed at least six (6) days prior to the intended leave, are subject to
disciplinary action: (nicite ko yung table in case itanong)

The same Policy on Employee Conduct also punishes falsification of company records or documents with
VIOLATIONS
2. ABSENCE WITHOUT
PERMISSION (within one
calendar year)
A. Each day absent not
exceeding two (2) days
B. 3rd AWOP
C. 4th AWOP
D. 5th AWOP
E. 6th AWOP
F. 7th AWOP
G. 8th AWOP
H. 9th AWOP

1ST Offense

2nd Offense

3rd
Offense

4th
Offense

5thOffense

Written
warning
3 Days
suspension
5 Days
suspension
7 Days
suspension
10 Days
suspension
15 Days
suspension
30 Days
suspension
Discharge

3. ABSENCE WITHOUT
Discharge
PERMISSION FOR SIX
(6) OR MORE
CONSECUTIVE
WORKING DAYS IS
CONSIDERED
ABANDONMENT OF
WORK
discharge or termination for the first offense if the offender himself or somebody else benefits from falsification or
would have benefited if falsification is not found on time.
It appears that Ibias had 14 AWOP. He was given a written notice upon incurring his 5 th AWOP & was reminded
that further absences will be subject to disciplinary action. There were also instances that he allegedly falsified his
medical consultation card by stating therein that he was granted sick leave by the plant clinic on said dates when in
truth he was not.
When asked to submit an explanation why he should not be subject to discplinary action, he belatedly did so. He
merely denied the allegation on falsification. Not satisfied with the explanation, SMC conducted an administrative
investigation. It was found out that he was not really granted sick leaves. He allegedly admitted that he resorted to
falsification to cover up his AWOPs which he was forced to incur because of personal problems. SMC dismissed
him. Hence, Ibias filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
LA ruled that Ibias was illegally dismissed. Although he had committed the absences pointed out by SMC but
found the imposition of termination of employment based on his AWOPs to be disproportionate, as there was no
proof of strict implementation of SMCs policy on AWOPs. NLRC & CA affirmed.
ISSUE: W/N IBIAS DISMISSAL WAS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SMC MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE
RULING: YES
What the lower tribunals perceived as laxity, we consider as leniency. (IN VIEW OF SMCS INCONSISTENT
& LAX IMPLEMENTATIONOF ITS POLICY ON EES ATTENDANCE). SMCs tendency to excuse justified
absences actually redounded to the benefit of respondent since the imposition of the corresponding penalty would
have been deleterious to him. In a world where no work-no pay is the rule of thumb, several days of suspension
would be difficult for an ordinary working man like respondent. He should be thankful that SMC did not exact from
him almost 70 days suspension before he was finally dismissed from work.
An employer has the prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary for the proper conduct
of its business, to provide certain disciplinary measures in order to implement said rules and to assure that the same
would be complied with. An employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of policies, rules and
regulations on work-related activities of the employees.

It is axiomatic that appropriate disciplinary sanction is within the purview of management imposition.[37] Thus,
in the implementation of its rules and policies, the employer has the choice to do so strictly or not, since this is
inherent in its right to control and manage its business effectively. Consequently, management has the prerogative to
impose sanctions lighter than those specifically prescribed by its rules, or to condone completely the violations of its
erring employees. Of course, this prerogative must be exercised free of grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the
requirements of justice and fair play.

G.R. No. 185829

April 25, 2012

ARMANDO ALILING, Petitioner, vs. JOSE B. FELICIANO, MANUEL F. SAN MATEO III, JOSEPH R.
LARIOSA, and WIDE WIDE WORLD EXPRESS CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS:
In 2004, WWWEC sent a letter offering employment to Armando Aliling as "Account Executive (Seafreight
Sales) w/ a good compensation package (a monthly salary of PhP 13,000, transportation allowance of PhP 3,000,
clothing allowance of PhP 800, cost of living allowance of PhP 500, each payable on a per month basis and a 14th
month pay depending on the profitability and availability of financial resources of the company). The offer came
with a six (6)-month probation period condition with this express caveat: "Performance during [sic] probationary
period shall be made as basis for confirmation to Regular or Permanent Status."
They entered into an Employment contract, where it is stated that Conversion to regular status shall be
determined on the basis of work performance & employment services may, at any time, be terminated for just cause
or in accordance with the standards defined at the time of engagement.
However, contrary to what has been agreed upon, Aliling was asked to handle Ground Express (GX), a
companys new product. After a month, the Sales & Marketing Dir. San Mateo III emailed him to express
dissatisfaction of his performance & reminded him that he had to meet the 80% quota. HR Manager also wrote him a
letter to explain his absence taken without leave. He denied having been absent, showing his timesheet as a proof. He
asked why his salary was withhold.
He subsequently submitted a resignation letter w/c he later on revoked as he was allegedly forced by San Mateo
to do so. He was even informed of the termination of his services pursuant to his non-satisfactory performance.
Aliling filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal due to forced resignation, nonpayment of salaries as well as damages
with the NLRC against WWWEC. He alleged that the mgmt did not make known to him the standards under which
he will qualify as a regular employee.
ISSUE: W/N ALILINGS DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND OF FAILURE TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE
STANDARD IS W/IN THE MGMT PREROGATOVE
RULING: NO
There is this June 2, 2004 letter-offer itself states that the regularization standards or the performance norms to
be used are still to be agreed upon by Aliling and his supervisor. WWWEC has failed to prove that an agreement as
regards thereto has been reached. Clearly then, there were actually no performance standards to speak of. And lest it
be overlooked, Aliling was assigned to GX trucking sales, an activity entirely different to the Seafreight Sales he was
originally hired and trained for. Thus, at the time of his engagement, the standards relative to his assignment with GX
sales could not have plausibly been communicated to him as he was under Seafreight Sales.
Section 6 of the Implementing Rules of Book VI, Rule VIII-A of the Code specifically requires the employer to
inform the probationary employee of such reasonable standards at the time of his engagement.

G.R. No. 167760 March 7, 2007

MANILA JOCKEY CLUB EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-PTGWO, Petitioner, v. MANILA JOCKEY
CLUB, INC., Respondent.
FACTS:
The parties entered into a CBA effective 1996-2000. The CBA governed the economic rights and obligations of
respondents regular monthly paid rank-and-file employees. They agreed to a 7-hour work schedule from 9:00 a.m. to
12:00 noon and from1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on a work week of Monday to Saturday (Section 1, Article IV of CBA).
Under its Sec 2, Art XI, certain mgmt prerogatives were reserved to MJCI, including the determination of the
work schedule. The exercise of these prerogatives shall be subject to & in accordance with pertinent directives,
proclamations and their implementing rules and regulations.
In 1999, MJCI issued a memorandum declaring that, effective April 20, 1999, the hours of work of regular
monthly-paid employees shall be from 1:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. when horse races are held, that is, every Tuesday and
Thursday. The memorandum, however, maintained the 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. schedule for non-race days.
The parties had a supplemental CBA wherein it is agreed upon that any conflict arising from the earlier cited
provisions shall be referred to a voluntary arbitrator for resolution. The UNION questioned the
memorandum before NCMB (National Conciliation and Mediation Board) as violative of the prohibition against
non-diminution of wages and benefits. They are precluded from rendering their usual overtime work from
5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. NCMB, however, upheld MJCIs prerogative. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: W/N THE CHANGE OF THE WORKING HOURS IS W/IN MCJIS MGMT PREROGATIVE
RULING: YES
MCJI, as employer, cites the change in the program of horse races as reason for the adjustment of the employees
work schedule. When the races were moved to 2:00 p.m., there was no other choice for management but to
change the employees' work schedule as there was no work to be done in the morning. Evidently, the adjustment in
the work schedule of the employees is justified.
As it is, the Court will not interfere with the business judgment of an employer in the exercise of its prerogative
to devise means to improve its operation, provided that it does not violate the law, CBAs, and the general principles
of justice and fair play.
Management is free to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment,
including hiring, work assignments, working methods,time, place and manner of work, processes to be followed,
supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, layoff of workers and
discipline, dismissal, and recall of workers.
Their CBA even reserved to MCJI the prerogative to change existing methods or facilities to change the
schedules of work.
As to the alleged diminution of wages & benefits: The overtime pay was not given to each employee

consistently, deliberately and unconditionally, but as a compensation for additional services rendered. Thus, overtime
pay does not fall within the definition of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code on prohibition against
elimination or diminution of benefits.
While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it
should not be presumed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor.

G.R. No. L-53515 February 8, 1989

SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES FORCE UNION (PTGWO), petitioner, vs. HON. BLAS F. OPLE, as
Minister of Labor and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS:
In 1978, the SMC Sales Force Union & SMC entered into a CBA effective 1978-1981. Section 1, of Article IV
of which provided as follows:
Art. IV, Section 1. Employees within the appropriate bargaining unit shall be entitled to a basic monthly
compensation plus commission based on their respective sales. (p. 6, Annex A; p. 113, Rollo.)
In 1979, SMC introduced a marketing scheme known as the "Complementary Distribution System" (CDS)
whereby its beer products were offered for sale directly to wholesalers through its sales offices. The UNION filed a
complaint for ULP w/ a notice of strike before the Ministry of Labor. The UNION alleged that CDS was contrary to
the existing marketing scheme whereby the Route Salesmen were assigned specific territories within which to sell
their stocks of beer, and wholesalers had to buy beer products from them, not from the company. It would reduce the
take-home pay of the salesmen and their truck helpers for the company would be unfairly competing with them.
The Minister found that the establishment of such scheme was part of its overall plan to improve efficiency and
economy and at the same time gain profit to the highest. CDS is a valid exercise of mgmt prerogative.
ISSUE: W/N THE CDS IS A VALID EXERCISE OF MGMT PREROGATIVE
RULING: YES
Except as limited by special laws, an employer is free to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment,
all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work,
tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work
supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of work.
Every business enterprise endeavors to increase its profits. In the process, it may adopt or devise means designed

towards that goal.

So long as a company's management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the
employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special
laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold them.
SMCs offer to compensate the members of its sales force who will be adversely affected by the implementation
of the CDS by paying them a so-called "back adjustment commission" to make up for the commissions they might
lose as a result of the CDS proves the company's good faith and lack of intention to bust their union.

G.R. No. 164774 April 12, 2006

STAR PAPER CORPORATION, JOSEPHINE ONGSITCO & SEBASTIAN CHUA, v. RONALDO D.
SIMBOL, WILFREDA N. COMIA & LORNA E. ESTRELLA, Respondents.
FACTS:
Respondents Ronaldo D. Simbol, Wilfreda N. Comia and Lorna E. Estrella were all regular employees of the
company.
A. In 1993, Simbol started working for Star Paper. He met Alma Dayrit, also an ee of Star Paper, whom he
married in 1998. Prior to the marriage, Manager of the Personnel and Administration Department Ongsitco advised
the couple that should they decide to get married, one of them should resign pursuant to a company policy
promulgated in 1995:
1. New applicants will not be allowed to be hired if in case he/she has [a] relative, up to [the] 3rd
degree of relationship, already employed by the company.
2. In case of two of our employees (both singles [sic], one male and another female) developed a
friendly relationship during the course of their employment and then decided to get married, one of
them should resign to preserve the policy stated above.
Pursuant to the policy, Simbol resigned in 1998.
B. Comia was hired in 1997. She met & married (2000) her co-worker Howard Comia. Ongsitco likewise
reminded them of the policy. Comia (girl) resigned in 2000.

C. Estrella was hired in 1994. She met Lorenzo Zuiga, a married man, who got her pregnant. Star Paper
allegedly could have terminated her services due to immorality but she opted to resign in 1999.
Accdg. to Star Paper, after their voluntary resignation, Simbol, Comia & Estrella each signed a Release and
Confirmation Agreement. However, the three contended that they did not voluntarily resigned. they were
compelled to resign in view of an illegal company policy. They later filed a complaint for unfair labor practice,
constructive dismissal, separation pay and attorneys fees. They averred that the aforementioned company policy
is illegal and contravenes Article 136 of the Labor Code. They also contended that they were dismissed due to
their union membership.
Star Paper alleged that its policy may appear to be contrary to Article 136 of the Labor Code but it assumes
a new meaning if read together with the first paragraph of the rule. The rule does not require the woman
employee to resign. The employee spouses have the right to choose who between them should resign. Further,
they are free to marry persons other than co-employees. Hence, it is not the marital status of the employee, per
se, that is being discriminated. It is only intended to carry out its no-employment-for-relatives-within-the-thirddegree-policy which is within the ambit of the prerogatives of management.
LA dismissed the complaint, upholding Star Papers mgmt prerogative. NLRC affirmed. CA reversed
ISSUE: W/N THE ERS POLICY OF BANNING SPOUSES FROM WORKING IN THE SAME COMPANY IS A
VALID EXERCISE OF MGMT PREROGATIVE
RULING: NO.
The Constitution, Civil Code, and Labor Code have plenty of provisions which protects the labor. Article 136 of
the Labor Code provides:
Art. 136. It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or continuation of
employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting
married a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate
or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage.
BONA FIDE OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATION: a company policy must be reasonable under the
circumstances to qualify as a valid exercise of management prerogative & it must reflect an inherent quality
reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance.
There is no reasonable business necessity in this case. Star Papers sole contention that the company did not just
want to have two (2) or more of its employees related between the third degree by affinity and/or consanguinity is
lame. It failed to show how the involved marriages would be a detriment to its business. The policy is
premised on the mere fear that employees married to each other will be less efficient. If we uphold the questioned
rule without valid justification, the employer can create policies based on an unproven presumption of a perceived
danger at the expense of an employees right to security of tenure.
The questioned policy may not facially violate Article 136 of the Labor Code but it creates a disproportionate
effect and under the disparate impact theory, the only way it could pass judicial scrutiny is a showing that it is
reasonable despite the discriminatory, albeit disproportionate, effect.
The failure of petitioners to prove a legitimate business concern in imposing the questioned policy cannot
prejudice the employees right to be free from arbitrary discrimination based upon stereotypes of married persons
working together in one company.
The absence of a statute expressly prohibiting marital discrimination in our jurisdiction cannot benefit the
petitioners. The protection given to labor in our jurisdiction is vast and extensive that we cannot prudently draw
inferences from the legislatures silence.
[G.R. No. 120009. September 13, 2001]
DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC., et al v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, et al
FACTS:
In 1982, Dole reduced its manpower by 509 workers but prolonged collective bargaining negotiations, which
ended in 1990, prevented the company from proceeding with its restructuring. Hence, in 1990 and 1991, Dole carried
out a massive manpower reduction and restructuring program aimed at reducing the total workforce and the number
of positions in the companys table of organization. Accdg. To Dole, such program is part of its efforts to restructure
its organization.

Among the factors considered by the company in undertaking the reduction program was the high absenteeism
rate. Dole also cites the exacerbation of operating cost problems due to factors beyond [its] control, i.e., the Gulf
War, oil price increases, mandated wage increases, the 9% import levy, power rate hikes, [and] increased land
rentals, existing at that time. It also cited the bloody December 1989 coup detat w/c affected the countrys economic
progress.
Dole abolished the positions of foremen, bargaining capataces and foreladies. Employees occupying these
positions were either promoted or were dismissed on grounds of redundancy.
In 1990, Dole had a Special Voluntary Resignation (SVR) program of which many employees, including a
number of private respondents, availed. Under this program, ees will receive benefits. After receiving these benefits,
ees executed a Release (Quitclaim). 2357 ees were separated from Dole. Dole found that it could still do with lesser
employees, and proceeded to dismiss more of them in March 1991. Overall, 2,792 employees were separated under
the SVR Program. A total of P298,199,000.00 in benefits were paid by Dole to the separated employees.
Complaints for illegal dismissal were filed against Dole. LA dismissed the complaints for lack of merit. NLRC
reversed.
ISSUE: W/N THE COMPANYS REDUNDANCY PROGRAM IS VALID
RULING:
Redundancy is one of the authorized causes for the dismissal of an employee. Doles redundancy program does
not appear to be tainted by bad faith. The petition alleges that the redundancy program is part of a wide-scale
restructuring of the company. Among the avowed goals of such restructuring is the reduction of absenteeism
in the company. The harsh economic and political climate then prevailing in the country also emphasized the need
for cost-saving measures.
Reorganization as a cost-saving device is acknowledged by jurisprudence. An employer is not precluded from
adopting a new policy conducive to a more economical and effective management,[30] and the law does not require
that the employer should be suffering financial losses before he can terminate the services of the employee on the
ground of redundancy.
Petitioner does not deny that they hired casual employees after the implementation of the redundancy program.
Petitioner explains, however, that it has always hired casuals to augment the companys manpower requirements in
accordance with the demands of the industry.
The law does not prevent employers from saving on labor costs.