ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 156212.
MMPSA vs. MITSUBISHI CORP.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 19 2004.
G.R. No. 156212 (Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Supervisors Association (MMPSA), et al. vs. Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Corporation.)
This refers to the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners, the comment thereon of respondent, and the reply thereto of petitioners.
In the Resolution of January 27, 2003, the petition for review on certiorari was denied for failure to: first, properly verify the same, there being no proof that Amado Felix, president of petitioner association, was duly authorized to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping for and in behalf of petitioners; and second, submit a valid affidavit of service, it appearing that the submitted affidavit was notarized on December 13, 2002, prior to actual service by registered mail on December 16, 2002.
Petitioners move for reconsideration of the Resolution, contending that in view of the number of members in petitioner association and that members with pending cases went home to their provinces pending resolution thereof, Amado Felix was authorized to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in their behalf. To prove his authority, petitioners submit a copy of Resolution No. 01-2002 of petitioners association and the Special Power of Attorney dated March 11, 2003 executed by the individual petitioners. As to the defect in the affidavit of service, petitioners recount that the messenger left Cainta, Rizal in the afternoon, arrived at the office of counsel in Quezon City at around 4:00 p.m., had the petition notarized at Banawe Street, Quezon City, and mailed copies thereof at the Banawe Post Office located at the ground floor of the building occupied by the NLRC. Thereafter, the messenger left to file the petition with this Court. Since the messenger called counsel after 5:00 p.m. and was informed that the Receiving Section of the Court was closed by that time, the petition was instead filed on December 16, 2002 at 11:44 a.m. Petitioners pray that the rules of procedure should not be applied in a rigid and technical manner.
The Court finds no compelling reason to warrant the reconsideration sought.
While petitioners have demonstrated that Amado Felix was authorized to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in behalf of petitioners, their explanation for the discrepancy in the affidavit of service is not satisfactory. Petitioners imply that, with the exception of the copy intended for this Court, the other copies of the petition were sent by registered mail on December 13, 2002, the date of notarization of the affidavit of service. As correctly observed by respondent, the registry receipts indicate that the copies of counsel for respondent, the Court of Appeals and the Solicitor General were all sent by registered mail on December 16, 2002. Even the copy of the NLRC was personally delivered only on December 16, 2002.
In any event, a perusal of the petition reveals that the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in rendering its assailed judgment. The appellate court aptly resolved the issue whether or not the retrenchment program was valid, or stated differently, whether respondent failed to use a fair and reasonable criteria in determining which employees should be dismissed and retained, thus:
Furthermore, on the substantial aspect of the case, Article 283 of the Labor Code, as amended states:
"Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. -The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to separation pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retenchment to prevent losses and in case of closure or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month or at least one0half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year."
Mitsubishi Motors had complied with the requirements for valid retrenchment of employees. The retrenchment of the twenty nine salaried employees was reasonably necessary to prevent substantial, serious, actual and real business losses. Written notices were served both to the employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; separation pay of the retrenched employees have been paid. The retrenchment of said employees had been exercised by Mitsubishi Motors in good faith for the advancement of its interest and to defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure and finally, Mitsubishi Motors used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as, status (i.e. whether they are temporary, casual, regular or managerial employees), efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age and financial hardship for certain workers. [1] cralaw
Furthermore, it is relevant to note that in reconsidering its earlier decision, the NLRC, whose decision is affirmed by the Court of Appeals, observed that petitioners evaluated themselves based on the contested criteria, and that their marks and Performance ratings showed that their performances were below satisfactory. [2] cralaw The NLRC correctly took into consideration that the same criteria was used in the retrenchment of hourly employees, some of whom also filed cases contesting their retrenchment but nonetheless failed to secure a favorable ruling from the NLRC. [3] cralaw
In view of the foregoing, the motion is DENIED for lack of merit and there being no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Decision dated July 23, 2002, Rollo, pp. 88-89.
[2] cralaw Resolution dated July 9, 2001, Rollo, p. 49.
[3] cralaw Id., p. 50.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
