[MANGGAGAWA NG KOMUNIKASYON SA PILIPINAS v. PLDT 4. On December 23, 2002, UNION went on strike.

5. On December 31, 2002, PLDT declared only 323 employees as

GR No. 190389 | April 19, 2017 redundant as it was able to redeploy 180 of the 503 affected employees
FACTS: to other positions.
1. On June 27, 2002, the labor organization Manggagawa ng 6. On January 2, 2003, the Secretary of Labor and Employment certified
Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas (UNION), which represented the employees the labor dispute for compulsory arbitration. Accordingly, the strike
of PLDT, led a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and staged by the Union is hereby enjoined. All striking workers are hereby
Mediation Board. The UNION charged PLDT with ULP "for transferring directed to return to work within 24 hours from receipt of this Order,
several employees of its Provisioning Support Division to Bicutan, except those who were terminated due to redundancy. The employer is
Taguig." hereby enjoined to accept the striking workers under the same terms and
2. The first notice of strike was amended twice by the UNION. On its conditions prevailing prior to the strike. The parties are likewise directed
second amendment dated November 4, 2002, UNION accused PLDT of to cease and desist from committing any act that might worsen the
the following unfair labor practices: situation. Let the entire records of the case be forwarded to the NLRC for
a. PLDT's abolition of the Provisioning Support Division. Such its immediate and appropriate action.
action, together with the consequent redundancy of PSD 7. UNION filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA challenging the
employees and the farming out of the jobs to casuals and Secretary of Labor and Employment's Order insofar as it created a
contractual, violates the duty to bargain collectively with MKP in distinction among the striking workers in the return-to-work order.
good faith. 8. On November 25, 2003, the CA granted the Petition for Certiorari, setting
b. PLDT's unreasonable refusal to honor its commitment before this aside and nullifying the Secretary of Labor and Employment's assailed
Honorable office that it will provide MKP its comprehensive Order.
plan/s with respect to personnel downsizing/reorganization and 9. PLDT appealed the CA Decision to SC. SC upheld the CA's Decision,
closure of exchanges. Such refusal violates its duty to bargain and directed PLDT to readmit all striking workers under the same terms
collectively with MKP in good faith. and conditions prevailing before the strike.
c. PLDT's continued hiring of "contractual," "temporary," "project," 10. On October 28, 2005, the NLRC dismissed UNION’S charges of unfair
and "casual" employees for regular jobs performed by union labor practices against PLDT.
members, resulting in the decimation of the union membership 11. NLRC held that PLDT’s redundancy program in 2002 was valid and did
and in the denial of the right to self-organization to the concerned not constitute unfair legal practice. The redundancy program was due to
employees. the decline of subscribers for long distance calls and to fixed line
3. On November 11, 2002, while the first notice of strike was pending, services produced by technological advances in the communications
UNION filed another notice of strike and accused PLDT of: ULTP to wit: industry. NLRC ruled that the termination of employees due to
1. PLDT's alleged restructuring of its [Greater Metropolitan Manila] redundancy was legal.
Operation Services December 31, 2002 and its closure of traffic 12. NLRC denied UNION's motion for reconsideration.
operations at the Batangas, Calamba, Davao, Iloilo, Lucena, Malolos and 13. UNION filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA.
Tarlac Regional Operator Services effective December 31, 2002. These 14. The Secretary of Labor and Employment dismissed Union's Motion for
twin moves unjustly imperil the job security of 503 of MKP's members Execution of this Court's July 14, 2005 Decision. It assailed the National
and will substantially decimate the parties' bargaining unit. And in the Labor Relations Commission's resolutions, which upheld the validity of
light of PLDT's previous commitment before this Honorable Office that it Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company's redundancy program
will provide MKP its comprehensive plan/s with respect to personnel 15. Secretary of Labor and Employment denied Union’s motion for
downsizing/reorganization and closure of exchanges and of its more reconsideration.
recent declaration that the Davao operator services will not be closed, 16. UNION filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, assailing the August
these moves are treacherous and are thus violative of PLDT's duty to 11, 2006 Resolution and March 16, 2007 Order of the Secretary of Labor
bargain collectively with MKP in good faith. That these moves were and Employment.
effected with PLDT paying only lip service to its duties under Art. III, 17. CA consolidated the cases, and dismissed UNION’s appeals on August
Section 8 of the parties' CBA do signifies PLDT's gross violation of said 28, 2008.
CBA.
18. For the 2nd petition for certiorari, the CA ruled that the NLRC did not only raised by UNION for the first time on appeal. PLDT asserts that the
commit grave abuse of discretion when it found that PLDT’s declaration real issue in that case was whether it was obligated to transfer the
of redundancy was justified and valid, as the redundancy program was affected Provisioning Support Division employees, and not whether their
based on substantial evidence. The 2002 declaration of redundancy redundancies were valid. PLDT maintains that the affected Provisioning
"was not attended by ULP because it was transparent and forthright in its Support Division personnel were given the opportunity to apply for
implementation of the redundancy program. PLDT also successfully another division, yet they chose not to. PLDT avers that Union’s resort to
redeployed 180 of the 503 affected employees to other positions. interrogatories has been denied with finality by the Court of Appeals.
19. CA confirmed that its assailed order of reinstatement indicated that all
employees, even those declared separated effective December 31, ISSUES:
2002, should be reinstated pendente lite. However, the CA stated that 1. W/N THE REDUNDANCY PROGRAM of PLDT is valid? Yes, it is valid.
the order of reinstatement became moot due to the NLRC October 28, The Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it regarded the
2005 Decision, which upheld the validity of the dismissal of the technological advancements resulting in less work for the redundated
employees affected by the redundancy program. employees as justifying PLDT’s declaration of redundancy.
20. (IMPT FACTS) CA denied Union’s motion for reconsideration. In its
Petition for Review on Certiorari, UNION states that employees in the 2. W/N the return to work order of the Sec. of labor was rendered moot
Provisioning Support Division and in the Operator Services Section had when the NLRC upheld the validity of the redundancy? Yes, rendered
their positions declared redundant in 2002. (UNION’S ARGUMENTS) moot.
a. It asserts that the total number of rank-and-file positions actually
declared redundant was 538, or 35 positions in the Provisioning RATIO:
Support Division and 503 positions in the Operator Services The Redundancy Program of PLDT is valid
Section. It also maintains that PLDT failed to submit evidence in 1. Redundancy exists when “the services of an employee are in excess of
support of its declaration of redundancy of the 35 rank-and-file what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the
employees in the Provisioning Support Division. enterprise.”
b. It claimed that PLDT only notified Department of Labor and
Employment of the 'closure of traffic operations at Regional 2. In Asian Alcohol Corporation v. NLRC, for the implementation of a
Operator Services affecting 392 employees and the restructuring redundancy program to be valid, the employer must comply with
of [Greater Metropolitan Manila] Operator Services affecting 111 the following requisites: (1) written notice served on both the
employees. employees and the Department of Labor and Employment at least
c. It asserts that there was no notice given regarding the closure of one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; (2) payment
Provisioning Support Division, and the termination of of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least
employment due to redundancy of the affected rank-and-file one month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher; (3)
employees. good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and (4) fair and
d. It points out that the justifications for the redundancy put forth by reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company "only pertained to redundant and accordingly abolished.
the affected operator services positions and not the affected
[Provisioning Support Division] positions.
3. While a declaration of redundancy is ultimately a management decision
e. It maintains that the National Labor Relations Commission
in exercising its business judgment, and the employer is not obligated to
committed grave abuse of discretion when it disallowed the
keep in its payroll more employees than are needed for its day-to-day
written interrogatories that the UNION submitted.
operations, management must not violate the law nor declare
21. As for the issue of reinstatement pendente lite, UNION cites Garcia v.
redundancy without sufficient basis. Hence, to establish good faith, the
Philippine Airlines, Inc. 55 to bolster its stand. It holds that an employee
company must provide substantial proof that the services of the
is entitled to reinstatement or backwages pending appeal if the Labor
employees are in excess of what is required of the company, and that fair
Arbiter's finding of illegal dismissal is later on reversed by the National
and reasonable criteria were used to determine the redundant positions.
Labor Relations Commission.
22. (PLDT’S ARGUMENTS) For its part, PLDT claims that the validity of
redundancy of the affected Provisioning Support Division employees was
4. PLDT Company’s declaration of redundancy was backed by substantial employer. Retirement benefits are intended to help the employee enjoy
evidence showing a consistent decline for operator-assisted calls for the remaining years of his life, lessening the burden of worrying for his
both local and international calls because of cheaper alternatives like financial support, and are a form of reward for his loyalty and service to
direct dialing services, and the growth of wireless communication. Thus, the employer.
the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it upheld the
validity of PLDT’s redundancy program. Redundancy is ultimately a Whether the return-to-work order of the Secretary of Labor and
management prerogative, and the wisdom or soundness of such Employment was rendered moot when the National Labor Relations
business judgment is not subject to discretionary review by labor Commission upheld the validity of the redundancy program?
tribunals or even this Court, as long as the law was followed and Yes. When petitioner filed its Motion for Execution, there was no longer any
malicious or arbitrary action was not shown. existing basis for the return-to-work order. This was because the Secretary of
Labor and Employment’s return-to-work order had been superseded by the
Minor Issues: Whether or not the twin requirement imposed by law to National Labor Relations Commission’s Resolution. Hence, the Secretary of
the employer, for either redundancy or retrenchment, to give separation Labor and Employment did not err in dismissing the motion for execution on
pay to the affected employees, and the service of a written notice on the ground of mootness.
both the employees and the DOLE are complied with?
Whether or not the prevailing doctrine laid down in Garcia v. Philippine
1. While we agree that PLDT Company complied with the notice Airlines which provides that even if a Labor Arbiter’s order of
requirement, the same cannot be said as regards the separation pay reinstatement is reversed on appeal, the employer is obligated “to
received by some of the affected workers. reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the
period of appeal until reversal by the higher court applies in this case?
No, Garcia is not applicable. There is no order of reinstatement from a Labor
2. When an employer declares redundancy, Article 298 of the Labor Code
Arbiter in the case at bar, instead, what is at issue is the return-to-work order
requires that the employer provides a separation pay equivalent to at
from the Secretary of Labor and Employment. An order of reinstatement is
least one (1) month pay of the affected employee, or at least one (1)
different from a return-to-work order in the sense that the award of
month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. Separation pay
reinstatement, including backwages, is awarded by a Labor Arbiter to an
brought about by redundancy is a statutory right, and it is irrelevant that
illegally dismissed employee pursuant to Article 294 of the Labor Code; while
the retirement benefits together with the separation pay given to the
a return-to-work order is issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment
terminated workers resulted in a total amount that appeared to be more
when he or she assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry that
than what is required by the law.
is considered indispensable to the national interest, and is merely meant to
maintain status quo while the main issue is being threshed out in the proper
3. In this case, the facts show that instead of the legally required one (1) forum. Clearly, Garcia is not applicable in the case at bar, and there is no
month salary for every year of service rendered, the terminated workers basis to reinstate the employees who were terminated as a result of
who were with PLDT Company for more than 15 years received a redundancy.
separation pay of only 75% of their basic pay for every year of service,
despite the clear wording of the law. Clearly, the workers, who were
Disposition: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is
terminated from employment as a result of redundancy, are entitled to
PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' August 28, 2008 Decision
the separation pay due them under the law.
and November 24, 2009 Resolution in CAG. R. SP No. 94365 and CA-G.R.
SP No. 98975 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Private respondent
4. Separation pay is required in the cases enumerated in Articles 283 and Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. is DIRECTED to pay the
284 of the Labor Code, which include retrenchment, and is computed at workers affected by its 2002 redundancy program and who had been
least one month salary or at the rate of one-half month salary for every employed for more than 15 years prior to their dismissal, the balance of the
month of service, whichever is higher. It is a statutory right designed to separation pay due them or a sum equivalent to 25% of their basic monthly
provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he is pay for every year of service with Philippine Long Distance Telephone
looking for another employment. On the other hand, retirement benefits, Company, Inc. A legal interest of 6% per annum shall be imposed on the
where not mandated by law, may be granted by agreement of the total judgment award from the finality of this Decision until its full satisfaction.
employees and their employer or as a voluntary act on the part of the SO ORDERED.