Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 130 views

    GARCIA vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 110518, August 1, 1994 Facts

    Uploaded by

    CJ Fa
    This case involved the retrenchment of 51 employees by NASECO, a manpower services company. The employees had participated in an illegal strike against PNB, NASECO's client. When they reported back to work, PNB had replaced them. NASECO was unable to find them new assignments and paid their salaries for months without work. NASECO then separated the employees, citing financial losses. The Court upheld the retrenchment as valid, as NASECO proved substantial losses of over 1 million pesos from paying salaries without work. While protecting labor, the Court will not prevent a valid retrenchment when the employer has proven financial difficulties and exerted efforts to help separated employees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    GARCIA vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 110518, August 1, 1994 Facts

    Uploaded by

    CJ Fa
    130 views1 page
    This case involved the retrenchment of 51 employees by NASECO, a manpower services company. The employees had participated in an illegal strike against PNB, NASECO's client. When they reported back to work, PNB had replaced them. NASECO was unable to find them new assignments and paid their salaries for months without work. NASECO then separated the employees, citing financial losses. The Court upheld the retrenchment as valid, as NASECO proved substantial losses of over 1 million pesos from paying salaries without work. While protecting labor, the Court will not prevent a valid retrenchment when the employer has proven financial difficulties and exerted efforts to help separated employees.

    Original Title

    3 GARCIA-vs-NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved the retrenchment of 51 employees by NASECO, a manpower services company. The employees had participated in an illegal strike against PNB, NASECO's client. When they reported back to work, PNB had replaced them. NASECO was unable to find them new assignments and paid their salaries for months without work. NASECO then separated the employees, citing financial losses. The Court upheld the retrenchment as valid, as NASECO proved substantial losses of over 1 million pesos from paying salaries without work. While protecting labor, the Court will not prevent a valid retrenchment when the employer has proven financial difficulties and exerted efforts to help separated employees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    130 views1 page

    GARCIA vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 110518, August 1, 1994 Facts

    Uploaded by

    CJ Fa
    This case involved the retrenchment of 51 employees by NASECO, a manpower services company. The employees had participated in an illegal strike against PNB, NASECO's client. When they reported back to work, PNB had replaced them. NASECO was unable to find them new assignments and paid their salaries for months without work. NASECO then separated the employees, citing financial losses. The Court upheld the retrenchment as valid, as NASECO proved substantial losses of over 1 million pesos from paying salaries without work. While protecting labor, the Court will not prevent a valid retrenchment when the employer has proven financial difficulties and exerted efforts to help separated employees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    GARCIA vs. NLRC, G.R. No.

    110518, August 1, 1994

    FACTS:

    NASECO is a GOCC engaged in providing manpower services principally for PNB. The
    petitioners were employees of NASECO who were either members if the NASECO Employees
    Union (NASECO-EU) or the Alliance of Concerned Workers of NASECO (ACW-NASECO). They
    were among those who staged a strike and picketed the premises of the PNB.

    The RTC, through the complaint of PNB, lifted the picket while the NLRC declare the strike
    illegal. Employees who actively participated were deemed to have legally lost their employment
    status. The rest were ordered to report for work immediately. However, when they reported for work,
    they were not given any assignment because the PNB has already contracted another company to
    fill the positions formerly held by the petitioners.

    NASECO sought new assignments for the petitioners but the petitioners insisted on their
    reassignment to the PNB. NASECO paid their salaries and other benefits for several months
    although they were not working. Then, NASECO sent notice of separation to the petitioners citing
    financial losses as the reason. They were given 30-day notice in consonance with Art. 283 of the
    Labor Code. The petitioners were also offered a better separation package compared to statutory
    requirement.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the retrenchment of the fifty-one petitioners by NASECO is valid.

    HELD:

    Yes. The Court sustained the decision of the NLRC that it is a fair retrenchment. The
    contention of the petitioners that the NLRC completely disregarded the requisites of a valid
    retrenchment as laid down in Lopez Sugar Corporation vs. Federation of Free Workers was without
    merit. Petitioners alleged that NASECO failed to show with convincing evidence that the incurred
    losses were substantial. However, NASECO has proven that it incurred substantial losses
    amounting to P1,457,700.42 caused by the salaries and other benefits paid to the petitioners during
    that year. The amount is not insubstantial considering the economic difficulties of the country that
    year when several coups d’ etat adversely affected the economy.

    The constitutional policy of providing full protection to labor is not intended to oppress or
    destroy management. The employer cannot be compelled to retain employees it no longer needs, to
    be paid for work unreasonably refused and not actually performed. NASECO bent over backward
    and exerted every effort to help the petitioners look for other work, postponed the effective date of
    their separation, and offered them a generous termination pay package. The unflagging commitment
    of this Court to the cause of labor will not prevent us from sustaining the employer when it is in the
    right, as in this case.

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the Labor and the resolutions of the NLRC are AFFIRMED,
    with the modification.

    You might also like