ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-97-1123 October 2, 1997 - JOSELITO R. ENRIQUEZ v. RUBY B. CAMARISTA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1255 October 2, 1997 - SIBANAH E. USMAN v. JULIUS G. CABE

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1080 October 2, 1997 - HANSON SANTOS v. SANCHO DAMES II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102900 October 2, 1997 - MARCELINO ARCELONA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108897 October 2, 1997 - SARKIES TOURS PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116184 October 2, 1997 - NATION BROADCASTING CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116720 October 2, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROEL ENCINADA

  • G.R. No. 117240 October 2, 1997 - PNCC v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120961 October 2, 1997 - DISTILLERIA WASHINGTON v. LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121449 October 2, 1997 - SANYO TRAVEL CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123172 October 2, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX DE GUIA

  • G.R. No. 102366 October 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HECTOR VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1250 October 6, 1997 - DOMINADOR D. BORNASAL, JR. v. JAIME T. MONTES

  • G.R. No. 83402 October 6, 1997 - ALGON ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103585 October 6, 1997 - NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118935 October 6, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO LO-AR

  • G.R. No. 123445 October 6, 1997 - BENJAMIN TOLENTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104774-75 October 8, 1997 - ZACARIAS OARDE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107992 October 8, 1997 - ODYSSEY PARK, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110115 October 8, 1997 - RODOLFO TIGNO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125616 October 8, 1997 - MARIO RABAJA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95694 October 9, 1997 - VICENTE VILLAFLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98328 October 9, 1997 - JUAN C. CARVAJAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106632 & 106678 October 9, 1997 - DORIS TERESA HO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111194 October 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO G. TEODORO

  • G.R. No. 113447 October 9, 1997 - ALAIN MANALILI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118992 October 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELERINO CASTROMERO

  • Adm. Case No. 4467 October 10, 1997 - GIL A. DE LEON, ET AL. v. RODOLFO BONIFACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103028 October 10, 1997 - CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE DELA ROSA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 107434 October 10, 1997 - CITIBANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111148 October 10, 1997 - ENRIQUE A. SOBREPEÑA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115938 October 10, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO GALERA

  • G.R. No. 119360 October 10, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119523 October 10, 1997 - ISABELO VIOLETA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120191 October 10, 1997 - LORETO ADALIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1199 October 13, 1997 - VLADIMIR BRUSOLA v. EUDARLIO B. VALENCIA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 68166 October 13, 1997 - HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-91-562 October 16, 1997 - EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-97-1139 October 16, 1997 - ROBERTO ESPIRITU v. EDUARDO JOVELLANOS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-92-747 October 16, 1997 - JESUS R. LLAMADO v. ARMANDO RAVELO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1189 October 16, 1997 - LELU P. CONTRERAS v. SALVADOR C. MIRANDO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1207 October 16, 1997 - D. ROY A. MASADAO, ET AL. v. GERALDINE GLORIOSO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1252 October 16, 1997 - ORESTES R. SANTOS v. NORBERTO V. DOBLADA, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1375 October 16, 1997 - ROMULO B. MACALINTAL v. ANGELITO C. TEH

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1391 October 16, 1997 - ROMULO A. RIVERA v. EFREN A. LAMORENA

  • Adm. Matter No. 97-9-97-MCTC October 16, 1997 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT OF THE MCTC OF DINGLE-DUENAS, ILOILO

  • G.R. No. 94457 October 16, 1997 - VICTORIA LEGARDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 102936 October 16, 1997 - LEVY AGAO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105668 October 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO DALABAJAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112745 October 16, 1997 - AQUILINO T. LARIN v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113271 October 16, 1997 - WATEROUS DRUG CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115282 October 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MEDEL MAMALAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117399-117400 October 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY JAGOLINGAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118230 October 16, 1997 - ABUNDIA BINGCOY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118651 October 16, 1997 - PIONEER TEXTURIZING CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118853 October 16, 1997 - BRAHM INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118946 October 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICO JAMLAN SALEM

  • G.R. No. 121582 October 16, 1997 - SOUTHERN COTABATO DEV. & CONSTRUCTION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121687 October 16, 1997 - HEIRS OF MARCELINO PAGOBO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123248 October 16, 1997 - TWIN ACE HOLDINGS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128054 October 16, 1997 - KILOSBAYAN, INC., ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113003 October 17, 1997 - ALBERTA YOBIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113788 October 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORLITO GERON

  • G.R. No. 117459 October 17, 1997 - MOISES B. PANLILIO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122474-76 October 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR ABRECINOZ

  • G.R. No. 128119 October 17, 1997 - MURLI SADHWANI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1393 October 20, 1997 - ALAN SUASIN v. ERNESTO DINOPOL

  • G.R. No. 107747 October 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD TALINGTING

  • G.R. No. 99838 October 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105008 October 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMENCIANO VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 108905 October 23, 1997 - GRACE CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111155 October 23, 1997 - COSMOS BOTTLING CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111662 October 23, 1997 - A.G. DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118192 October 23, 1997 - PRO LINE SPORTS CENTER, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119777 & 120690 October 23, 1997 - HEIRS OF PEDRO ESCANLAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126321 October 23, 1997 - TOYOTA CUBAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112733 October 24, 1997 - PEOPLE’S INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114398 October 24, 1997 - CARMEN LIWANAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125469 October 27, 1997 - PHILIPPINE STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130644 October 27, 1997 - FRANCISCO JUAN LARRANAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118240 October 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIOVANNI BAJAR

  • G.R. No. 124099 October 30, 1997 - MANUEL G. REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104504 October 31, 1997 - PEDRITO PASTRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 117459   October 17, 1997 - MOISES B. PANLILIO v. NLRC, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 117459. October 17, 1997.]

    MOISES B. PANLILIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC FIRST DIVISION) AND FINDSTAFF PLACEMENT SERVICES, INC. AND OMAN SHERATON HOTEL, INC., Respondents.


    D E C I S I O N


    ROMERO, J.:


    Herein petitioner, unfazed by countless tales of overseas workers who embark adventurously on trips to "Promised Lands" only to find themselves shortchanged, or worse jobless, dares to trek the same path. His glorious dream lasted but six months when he was peremptorily dismissed on the ground that his position had become redundant.

    The facts as borne out by the records reveal that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Petitioner Moises B. Panlilio was recruited by private respondent Findstaff Placement Services (FPS) for employment in the Sheraton Hotel in Oman as Recreational Manager in October 1991. The contract was for a period of two years with a monthly compensation of one thousand one hundred dollars ($1,100.00). Petitioner’s good fortune, however, did not last long, for in March 1992 his services were terminated on the ground that his position had become redundant.

    He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Adjudication Office of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) which was docketed as POEA Case No. (L) 92-03-551. After due trial, the POEA rendered a decision dated April 21, 1993 ruling that petitioner was illegally dismissed on the premise that the alleged redundancy of his position was not adequately proven. 1

    FPS filed an appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission. In its decision dated April 19, 1994, 2 despite newly submitted affidavits from the officers of the Director of Personnel and Training Division of Sheraton Hotel by FPS substantiating the redundancy of petitioner’s position, the NLRC affirmed the POEA’s decision and dismissed the appeal for lack or merit.

    Undaunted by another setback, FPS filed a motion for reconsideration. To petitioner’s surprise and dismay, the NLRC reversed itself and rendered a new decision 3 upholding the validity of his dismissal on ground of redundancy. Hence, this petition.

    Petitioner claims that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it reversed its original ruling on the basis of the affidavits which it had earlier ruled out as self-serving and of no evidentiary value.

    After a careful study of the relevant facts, we are constrained to reverse the findings of the NLRC.

    In the case at bar, FPS failed to present substantial evidence to justify the dismissal of petitioner on the ground of redundancy. The affidavits and documents it submitted are entitled to little weight, for it does not prove the superfluity of petitioner’s position. 4 In fact, these documents do not even present the necessary factors which would confirm that a position is indeed redundant, such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business or dropping of a product line or service activity. 5

    On this matter, we agree with the observation and conclusion of the POEA which we quote, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Not a single evidence was submitted to bolster their contention. It is not enough for respondent to allege that complainant’s position became redundant and that there was restructuring of the staff at the Health Club of the Oman Sheraton Hotel. Respondents should have presented evidence to support this contention, such as but not limited to the new staffing pattern, feasibility studies/proposal, on the viability of the newly created positions, job description and the approval by the management of the restructuring." 6

    This view was bolstered by the NLRC in its original decision wherein it held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The affidavits just recently submitted merely touched on the issue of discrimination denying it ever existed or that complainant was its victim. Apart from being self-serving as having been issued by present employees of respondent Oman Sheraton Hotel to whom their loyalty are (sic) expected to lie, we simply cannot give much weight to it in the light of our inability and that of the complainant to confront them with the documents they purportedly signed under oath. More so, even granting arguendo that no discrimination transpired still, the fact remains that the restructuring and redundancy that became the basis of complainant’s severance from employment remains an imaginary preposition unsupported by concrete evidence." 7chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

    In its resolution granting FPS’s motion for reconsideration, however, the NLRC made a sudden turnaround and, relying on the same evidence, ruled that redundancy of petitioner’s position was adequately proven, necessitating the reversal of its original decision. We cannot accommodate the new stance of the NLRC.

    In overturning its earlier decision, the NLRC reasoned out that since it could have summoned one of the affiants to amplify his statement, it erred in ruling that said affidavits were self-serving and of little value.

    This argument fails to impress us. Undoubtedly, said documents still do not sufficiently explain the reason why petitioner’s position had become redundant, but only elucidated the fact that he was not a victim of any discrimination in effecting the termination.

    We have held that it is important for a company to have fair and reasonable criteria in implementing its redundancy program, such as but not limited to, (a) preferred status, (b) efficiency and (c) seniority. 8 Unfortunately for FPS, such appraisal was not done in the instant case.

    Petitioner alleges that the NLRC erred in considering these affidavits which were introduced for the first time on appeal. We rule that the NLRC acted correctly when it admitted the affidavits submitted by FPS on appeal, for it cannot be disputed that technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. 9 Labor officials should use every reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. 10

    In line with the Court’s liberal stance regarding procedural deficiencies in labor cases, we have held that even if the evidence was not submitted at the earliest possible opportunity, the fact that it was duly introduced on appeal to the NLRC is enough basis for its eventual admission. 11

    The admissibility of the affidavits notwithstanding, we cannot affirm the decision of the NLRC especially when its findings of fact on which the conclusion was based are not supported by substantial evidence, 12 that is, the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. 13chanrobles

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The challenged resolution is SET ASIDE and the decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency is hereby REINSTATED. Costs against private Respondent.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 25-29.

    2. Ibid., pp. 19-24.

    3. Id., pp. 13-18.

    4. Rollo, p. 22.

    5. American Home Assurance Co. v. NLRC, 259 SCRA 280 (1996).

    6. Rollo, pp. 27-28.

    7. Ibid., p. 23.

    8. Capitol Wireless, Inc. v. Hon Secretary Ma. Nieves R. Confesor, Et Al., G.R. No. 117174, November 13, 1996.

    9. Art. 221, Labor Code.

    10. Magna Rubber Manufacturing Corporation v. Drilon, December 29, 1988.

    11. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation v. NLRC, 183 SCRA 451 (1990); Bristol Laboratories Employees Association v. NLRC, 187 SCRA 118 (1990).

    12. Labor v. NLRC, 248 SCRA 183 (1995).

    13. Remo Foods, Inc. v. NLRC, 249 SCRA 379 (1995).

    G.R. No. 117459   October 17, 1997 - MOISES B. PANLILIO v. NLRC, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED