THIRD
DIVISION
MOISES
B. PANLILIO,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. 117459
October 17, 1997
-versus-
NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
[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:
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.cralaw:red
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 of merit.cralaw:red
Undaunted by
another setback, FFS 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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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:
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:
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.[7]
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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.[13]
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.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Melo, Francisco and Panganiban,
JJ., concur.cralaw:red
_______________________________
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]
Article 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]. |