Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1997 > January 1997 Decisions > G.R. No. 111385 January 30, 1997 - JULIE G. CHUA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 111385. January 30, 1997.]

JULIE G. CHUA, ELEANOR C. GO and JOSEPHINE T. LOBENDINO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION, HON. OSWALD B. LORENZO, CHINA AIRLINES, LTD. & K.Y. CHANG, Respondents.

Jose T. Collados, Jr. for Petitioners.

Edgardo M. Tamoria for Public Respondent.

Cesar C. Cruz & Partners for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF LABOR TRIBUNALS ARE ACCORDED RESPECT AND FINALITY IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; CASE AT BAR. � We note that the instant petition principally questions the findings of the NLRC that China Airlines suffered business losses for six consecutive years from 1980 to 1985. In fact, petitioners argue that China Airlines could not have suffered "serious financial losses" then because, in 1984, the latter even granted a "whooping" 35% salary increase to its Manila Branch Office employees. We are of the opinion, however, that China Airlines magnanimity in increasing the salary of its employees in one of its several branch offices, does not disprove the fact that it suffered business losses in its worldwide operations. As NLRC observed: ". . . What else, can the complainants ask to show that the company is losing aside from the closure of the Regional Office for Northeast Asia, in Tokyo, Japan; the reduced personnel in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia from thirty (30) to three (3); Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from ten (10) to two (2); the Regional Office for the Americas in San Francisco, California and the regional Office in Europe, were likewise closed; instead, a Paris branch was established with only five (5) employees." At any rate, we are not prepared to disregard the findings of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that China airlines was incurring business losses, when it effected the questioned retrenchment. These essentially, are factual matters which are to determine, and whose findings thereon are within the competence of the labor tribunals accorded by this Court with respect and finality if they are supported by substantial evidence, as in this case.

2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; AUTHORIZED CAUSES; RETRENCHMENT; MANAGEMENT HAS THE PREROGATIVE TO CHOOSE WHICH DEPARTMENT OR SECTION OF ITS BUSINESS IS TO BE CLOSED FOR ECONOMIC REASONS; SUCH PREROGATIVE MUST BE DONE IN GOOD FAITH TO ADVANCE THE EMPLOYER’S INTEREST. � With respect to petitioner’s contention that the closure of the Ticketing Section was unwarranted as the Manila Branch Office "has always been making money for China airlines", suffice it to state that management has the prerogative to choose which department or section of its business is to be closed for economic reasons. And the exercise of such prerogative if done in good faith to advance the employer’s interests, as in this case, will always be upheld.


R E S O L U T I O N


FRANCISCO, J.:


Petitioners Eleanor C. Go, Julie G. Chua, and Josephine T Lobendino were former regular employees of private respondent China Airlines LTD (China Airlines for brevity). They were assigned at the Ticketing Section of its Manila Branch Office, with petitioner Go, 1 as Senior Ticketing Agent, and petitioners Chua 2 and Lobendino, 3 as Ticketing Agents.

On October 29, 1986, private respondent K.Y. Chang, then District Manager of Manila Branch Office, sent a Memorandum 4 to Rebecca Veloso, Head of Ticketing Section, informing her that "in order to prevent and arrest further losses . . ., Management has decided to temporarily, close its [T]icketing [S]ection." Similar notices were likewise sent to herein petitioners, 5 and to the Department of Labor and Employment 6 (DOLE), notifying them that petitioners " will be temporarily laid-off from . . . employment effective October, 30, 1986." Thereafter, China Airlines decided to permanently close said Ticketing Section. 7 Thus, on November 5, 1986, it sent the corresponding notices to the petitioners, 8 advising them that their recent lay-off from employment will be considered permanent effective one (1) month from such notice. A manifestation informing the DOLE of this impending retrenchment was likewise filed on November 11, 1986. 9

Nearly three years later, or on October 9, 1989, petitioners sued China Airlines and K.Y. Chang before the Labor Arbiter for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal with claims for: reinstatement, backwages, damages, and. attorneys fees. The Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioners’ charges, declaring that "the retrenchment, [was] . . . validly effected." 10 Nevertheless, the Labor Arbiter directed China Airlines to pay petitioners retirement and/or separation pay benefits", to wit: (a) Eleanor Go � P372,730.00; (b) Julie Chua � P100,000.00; and (c) Josephine Lobendino P54,000.00. 11 In addition, the Labor-Arbiter also ordered China Airlines to pay attorneys fees to the petitioners in the amount of P52,673.00, or ten (10) percent of the aggregate monetary awards.

Dissatisfied, petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which declared that the retrenchment was "validly effected in good faith". 12 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, 13 but the same was denied. 14 Hence, this petition assailing the decision of the NLRC for having been allegedly rendered with grave abuse of discretion.

We note that the instant petition principally questions the findings of the NLRC that China Airlines suffered business losses for six consecutive years from 1980 to 1985. 15 In fact, petitioners argue that China Airlines could not have suffered "serious financial losses" then because, in 1984, the latter even granted a "whooping" 35% salary increase to its Manila Branch Office employees. 16 We are of the opinion, however, that China Airlines’ magnanimity in increasing the salary of its employees in one of its several branch offices, does not disprove the fact that it suffered business losses in its worldwide operations. As the NLRC observed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . What else, can the complainants ask to show that the company is losing aside from the closure of the Regional Office for Northeast Asia, in Tokyo, Japan; the reduced personnel in Jeddah Saudi Arabia from thirty (30) to three (3), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from ten (10) to two(2) the Regional Office for the Americas in San Francisco, California and the Regional Office in Europe, were likewise closed; instead a Paris branch, was established with only five (5) employees." 17

At any rate, we are not prepared to disregard the findings of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that China Airlines was incurring business losses, when it effected the questioned retrenchment. These, essentially, are factual matters which are within the competence of the labor tribunals to determine, 18 and whose findings thereon are accorded by this Court with respect and finality if they are supported by substantial evidence, 19 as in this case. chanrobles

With respect to petitioners’ contention that the closure of the Ticketing Section was unwarranted as the Manila Branch Office "has always been making money for China Airlines", 20 suffice it to state that management has the prerogative to choose, which department or section of its business is to be closed for economic reasons. 21 And the exercise of such prerogative if done in good faith to advance the employer’s interests, as in this case, will always be upheld. 22

In view of the foregoing, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the, part of NLRC in upholding the validity of the retrenchment of the petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the NLRC is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Hired in October 1968 as ground stewardess, appointed reservation clerk in 1969, and transferred to the Ticketing Section in 1977.

2. Joined China Airlines in April 1976 as receptionist, but transferred to the Ticketing Section in August 1977.

3. Employed in December 1980 as receptionist, became administrative secretary in 1983, promoted to cashier in 1985 and transferred to the Ticketing Section in 1986.

4. Annex "21" Rollo, p. 284.

5. Annexes "18" to "20"; Rollo, pp. 281-283.

6. Annexes "22"; "22-A", and "22-B", Rollo, pp. 285-287.

7. As early as April 15, 1985, the Manila Branch had already received a memorandum (Annexes "16", "16-A", "16-B", Rollo, pp. 274-277) from the Head Office in Taipei, requiring the former to submit its Retrenchment Plan, the pertinent portions of which are herein quoted:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Date: April 15, 1988

File: (74) Kwei-Hsin-Fa 2839

To: MNL, JKT, SEL, JED, KUL Branch Offices

Subject: Submit Retrenchment Plan of Your Branch Office in order to

Reduce Operation Cost

Explanation:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. A review of our financial statements for the past has shown that our Company had continuously experienced financial, losses during the previous 5 years beginning from 1980. Although we had taken various measures to minimize our expenses, yet the results were limited by only reducing some estimated losses, and our goal for turning "Loss" to "Gain" is hardly achieved. The estimated losses, and our goal for turning "Loss" to "Gain" is hardly achieved. The estimated losses for this year (1985) in US$9.46 million, however, we already suffered from such amount of losses only up to the end of February 1985. In order to abate and prevent further continued losses, we have undertake more effective programs.

x       x       x


4. Your office is now handling flights less than seven frequencies weekly number of employees seems to be much more than what the work load needs. Accordingly you are directed to take such measures as may be necessary and feasible to carry out the retrenchment program, including reduction of personnel at a minimum number of employees, and to report to Head Office immediately. (Emphasis ours.)

CHANG, LIN-TE (with seal)

President

8. Annexes "25" to "25-B"; Rollo, pp. 291-292; Annexes "26" to "26-B"; Rollo, p. 293-294; Annexes "26" to "26-B"; Rollo, pp. 293-294; Annexes "26" to "26-B"; pp. 295-296.

9. Annexes "29" to "29-A"; Rollo, pp. 299-300.

10. Decision dated May 2, 1991, penned by Labor Arbiter Oswald B. Lorenzo; Rollo, p. 52.

11. Id., pp. 52-53.

12. National-Labor Relations Commission’s Decision promulgated on December 3, 1992, p. 23. Rollo, p. 88.

13. Annex "D"; Rollo, pp. 90-100.

14. National Labor Relations Commission’s Order promulgated on June 30, 1993; Rollo, pp. 101-102.

15. YEAR NET LOSSES

1980 NT$ 690,801,218.71 (Annex "1"; Rollo, p. 203)

1981 NT$ 442,305,954.41 (Annex "2"; Rollo, p. 204)

1982 NT$ 890,387,411.68 (Annex "3"; Rollo, p. 205)

1983 NT$1,067,269,913.55 (Annex "4"; Rollo, p. 206)

1984 NT$ 641,715,712.00 (Annex "5"; Rollo, p. 207)

1985 NT$ 334,049,485.00 (Annex "6"; Rollo, p. 208)

16. Petition, p. 16; Rollo, p. 17.

17. NLRC Decision, pp. 21-22, Rollo, pp. 86-87.

18. Sebuguero v. NLRC, 248 SCRA 532, 544 (1995), citing Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Federation of Free Workers, 189 SCRA 179 (1990).

19. Catatista v. NLRC, 247 SCRA 46 (1995); Sebuguero v. NLRC, 248 SCRA 532 (1995); See Philippine School of Business Administration v. NLRC, 223 SCRA 305 (1993) and Tiu v. NLRC, Et Al., G.R. No. 95845, February 21, 1996.

20. Petition; p. 20, Rollo, p. 21.

21. Dangan v. NLRC, 127 SCRA 706 (1984); Special Events and Central Shipping Office Workers Union v. San Miguel Corporation, 122 SCRA 557, 574 (1983).

22. See Maya Farms Employees Organization, Et Al. v. NLRC, Et Al., 239 SCRA 608 (1994); Union Carbide Labor-Union v. Union Carbide, 215 SCRA 554 (1992).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1053 January 2, 1997 - MAKADAYA SADIK, ET AL. v. ABDALLAH CASAR

  • G.R. No. 108278 January 2, 1997 - NIACONSULT INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110017 January 2, 1997 - RODOLFO FUENTES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110405 January 2, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO TAÑEDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113085 January 2, 1997 - ANTONIO B. MOLATO, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114733 January 2, 1997 - AURORA LAND PROJECTS CORP. ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116682 January 2, 1997 - ROBLETT INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117190 January 2, 1997 - JACINTO TANGUILIG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117574 January 2, 1997 - CONCRETE AGGREGATES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118045 January 2, 1997 - JARCIA MACHINE SHOP AND AUTO SUPPLY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89894 January 3, 1997 - M. RAMIREZ INDUSTRIES v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116181 January 6, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117460 January 6, 1997 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117506-07 January 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ALOLOD

  • G.R. No. 111107 January 10, 1997 - LEONARDO A. PAAT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101632 January 13, 1997 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1104 January 14, 1997 - FRANCISCO BOLALIN v. SALVADOR M. OCCIANO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1105 January 14, 1997 - DBP v. FEDERICO A. LLANES, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 114003-06 January 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO VIOLIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122196 January 15, 1997 - F. F. MAÑACOP CONSTRUCTION CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104828 January 16, 1997 - RAFAEL BENITEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113498 January 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO BRIONES

  • G.R. No. 114105 January 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES ATAD

  • G.R. No. 114350 January 16, 1997 - JOSE T. OBOSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114872 January 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOMEDES MAGALLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116773 January 16, 1997 - TERESITA SAGALA-ESLAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997 - CHI MING TSOI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97920 January 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 106580 January 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 113657 January 20, 1997 - P. M. PASTERA BROKERAGE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118852 January 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO QUITORIANO

  • G.R. No. 122641 January 20, 1997 - BAYANI SUBIDO, JR., ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95608 January 21, 1997 - IGNACIO PALOMO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113220-21 January 21, 1997 - DAR ADJUDICATION BOARD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114928 January 21, 1997 - THE ANDRESONS GROUP, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119729 January 21, 1997 - ACE-AGRO DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120615 January 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF MANUEL T. SUICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121143 January 21, 1997 - PURIFICACION G. TABANG v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124076 January 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERRY SARABIA

  • G.R. Nos. 100481, 103716-17 & 107720 January 22, 1997 - PHIL. INTERISLAND SHIPPING ASSN. OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106244 January 22, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113074 January 22, 1997 - ALFRED HAHN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121178 January 22, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CAHINDO

  • G.R. No. 107372 January 23, 1997 - RAFAEL S. ORTAÑEZ v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112977 January 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEMARIE NAVALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119053 January 23, 1997 - FLORENTINO ATILLO III v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98060 January 27, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SATURNINA SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. 111547 January 27, 1997 - PAULINO ESTONINA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111713 January 27, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. 111897 January 27, 1997 - GONPU SERVICES CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111924 January 27, 1997 - ADORACION LUSTAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119063 January 27, 1997 - JOSE G. GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120482 January 27, 1997 - REFORMIST UNION OF R. B. LINER, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124074 January 27, 1997 - RESEARCH and SERVICES REALTY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter RTJ- 93-1031 January 28, 1997 - RODRIGO B. SUPENA v. ROSALIO G. DE LA ROSA

  • G.R. No. 95352 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO PAGAURA

  • G.R. No. 101312 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT DINGLASAN

  • G.R. No. 102199 January 28, 1997 - AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSN. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104400 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO PADAO

  • G.R. No. 106194 January 28, 1997 - SANTIAGO LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107624 January 28, 1997 - GAMALIEL C. VILLANUEVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110564 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMY VALLES

  • G.R. No. 111193 January 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND SUAREZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1339 January 29, 1997 - MANUEL T. PEPINO v. TIBING A. ASAALI

  • G.R. No. 112719 January 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO OMOTOY

  • G.R. No. 118325 January 29, 1997 - VIRGILIO M. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1067 January 30, 1997 - CONCERNED CITIZENS OF LAOAG CITY v. BIENVENIDO ARZAGA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1235 January 30, 1997 - ERNIO PORTES vs.CESARIO G. TEPACE

  • G.R. No. 111385 January 30, 1997 - JULIE G. CHUA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112965 January 30, 1997 - PHILIPPINES TODAY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114185 January 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO OBIAS

  • G.R. No. 117684 January 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLODUALDO CABILLAN

  • G.R. No. 117689 January 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEO ALVAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119160 January 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDITHA SEÑORON

  • G.R. No. 124766 January 30, 1997 - ORIENT EXPRESS PLACEMENT PHIL., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1021 January 31, 1997 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 111245 January 31, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA PACIFIC PLASTIC v. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113703 January 31, 1997 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. A. SORIANO CORP., ET AL.