Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > October 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 86657 October 23, 1989 - PRECISION ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 86657. October 23, 1989.]

PRECISION ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION & DOMINADOR C. CABRERA, JR., Respondents.

Mamerto Z. Mondragon for petitioner.


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


When an employer, on the pretext of retrenching, lays off an employee with a promise to re-hire him when its economic condition improves, is the employer bound by that promise? That is the issue presented by this case.

Respondent Dominador C. Cabrera, Jr. was employed by petitioner as Accountant II-Specialist 3 on September 17, 1979. On June 15, 1984, he was notified that he would be laid off effective July 16, 1984 due to the economic situation of the company but was assured of being re-hired when its operations returned to normal. The notice to him reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We regret to inform you that effective July 16, 1984, you are hereby permanently laid-off in view of non-availability of imported raw materials brought about by the current economic conditions in the country.

"Much as we would like to retain you and continue operations, economic constraints prevent us from continuing further our operations. Should in the future, the economic condition in our country improves (sic) and our operation would return to normal, you may rest assure (sic) that you will be considered a top priority in re-hiring." (p. 58, Rollo.)

Three years later, the petitioner announced in the newspapers that it was hiring additional personnel because its production and sales had increased. Cabrera applied for reemployment on May 8, 1987, but he was turned down.

On December 7, 1987, he filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal dismissal.

On February 29, 1988, the Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint on the ground that the "alleged violation of the assurance (that he would be re-hired) * cannot be a legal basis for the filing therein of a complaint."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon appeal by Cabrera to the National Labor Relations Commission, the latter, on September 30, 1988, reversed the Labor Arbiter and ordered the reinstatement of the respondent employee with backwages. The NLRC held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We do find that the Labor Arbiter committed an abuse of discretion or a serious error in dismissing complainant’s case for illegal dismissal.

"It should be pointed out here that respondent spoke of ‘retrenchment’ as its ground for terminating the services of complainant and many other of its employees. As we all know, retrenchment is one of the economic grounds to dismiss employees, which is resorted to by an employer primarily to avoid or minimize business losses. The law recognizes this under Article 283 of the Labor Code. However, the employer bears the burden to prove his allegation of economic or business reverses with clear and satisfactory evidence it being in the nature of an affirmative defense (Manila Hotel Corp. v. NLRC, 141 SCRA 169). Otherwise, if the employer fails to prove it, it necessarily means that the dismissal of an employee was not justified (Egypt Air, Et. Al. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 63185, February 27, 1987).

"In the instant case, not even a shred of evidence was presented by respondent to prove that it suffered from economic or business reverses so as to Justify its claim of retrenchment when it terminated the services of the complainant on July 16, 1984. No financial statement of any kind for the year 1983 or immediately prior thereto was submitted by respondent or any document of probative value to prove its alleged economic difficulties. No nothing, so to speak. Thus, the obvious conclusion that the mass lay-off or dismissal of respondent’s employees, including the complainant, on an unproven claim or non-existing ground of retrenchment was utterly unjustified, and in violation of the constitutional and statutory right of the dismissed employees to security of tenure.

"x       x       x

"Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside and a new one entered ordering respondent:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. To reinstate complainant without loss of seniority rights with backwages from the time he was illegally dismissed from the service up to the time of his reinstatement subject to the deduction mentioned above;

"2. Or to pay complainant separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service in addition to backwages, if the reinstatement of complainant is no longer feasible for one reason or another as may be determined by the Labor Arbiter concerned during the execution of this decision; and

"3. To pay the costs of the suit." (pp. 59-60, Rollo.)

In its petition for certiorari, the petitioner alleges that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in allowing Cabrera’s appeal although it was not under oath, as required under Section 13, Rule VII-A of the Implementing Rules of the Commission. No notice of appeal was sent to the petitioner and some exhibits were presented for the first time on appeal.

It will be seen that the petition is based on purely technical grounds. The petitioner did not rebut the finding of the NLRC that the dismissal of Cabrera was "utterly unjustified," hence, illegal, for the petitioner failed to present "even a shred of evidence" to prove that it suffered economic or business reverses justifying its claim that it needed to retrench. The ground for the dismissal of Cabrera was unproven and nonexistent.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Regarding the grounds of the petition, the public respondent pointed out in its comment that the lack of verification or oath in the appeal (the employee prosecuted his appeal by himself was not fatal (Del Navarro & Sons Logging Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC, 136 SCRA 669). Indeed, we have ruled in the past that a pleading which is required by the Rules of Court to be verified, may be given due course even without a verification if the circumstances warrant the suspension of the rules in the interest of justice (Oshita v. Republic, 19 SCRA 700; Villasanta v. Bautista, 36 SCRA 160; Quimpo v. De la Victoria, 46 SCRA 139)."cralaw virtua1aw library

Neither was Cabrera’s failure to furnish the petitioner with a copy of his appeal a sufficient cause for dismissing it. He could simply have been ordered to furnish the appellee with a copy of his appeal.

The submission of additional evidence in support of Cabrera’s appeal did not prejudice his employer for the latter could have submitted counter-evidence. After all, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling in proceedings before the Commission (Article 221, Labor Code).

WHEREFORE, finding that the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in rendering its assailed decision in NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-12-04289-87, the petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* Words in parenthesis supplied.




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






October-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 75713 October 2, 1989 - PHIL. COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION v. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT

  • G.R. No. 84571 October 2, 1989 - REYNALDO A. JACINTO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85999 October 2, 1989 - LUZ C. OÑAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86010 October 3, 1989 - LEOPOLDO GUARIN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 42478 October 4, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMEON A. CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 48686 October 4, 1989 - NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. v. MIGUEL R. NAVARRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81541 October 4, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. 85108 October 4, 1989 - VICENTE MALLARTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 30960 October 5, 1989 - MACARIA ABARRIENTOS VDA. DE CAPULONG, ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67289 October 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACARIO P. DIAMSAY

  • G.R. No. 71137 October 5, 1989 - FEDERICO FRANCO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73656 October 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO B. VILLAPANDO

  • G.R. No. 77530 October 5, 1989 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

  • G.R. No. 80806 October 5, 1989 - LEO PITA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83092 October 5, 1989 - LEONARDA T. AVEDANA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83335 October 5, 1989 - ROCHE (PHILIPPINES), ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Bar Matter No. 491 October 6, 1989 - IN RE: INQUIRY INTO THE 1989 ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 40452 October 12, 1989 - GREGORIO GENOBIAGON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 59012-13 October 12, 1989 - RIZAL-MEMORIAL COLLEGES FACULTY UNION-DAVAO WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65236 October 12, 1989 - MARIA V. DE CASIMIRO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85243 October 12, 1989 - CESAR R. DE LEON v. J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO

  • G.R. No. 56268 October 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO A. ARANJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80226-27 October 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEVY FRED JAMANDRON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82088 October 13, 1989 - ZAMBOANGA WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82499 October 13, 1989 - CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82564 October 13, 1989 - IGMIDIO ABANDO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO LOZADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83524 October 13, 1989 - ERNESTO KRAMER, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85868 October 13, 1989 - ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87672 October 13, 1989 - WISE AND CO., INC. v. WISE & CO., INC. EMPLOYEES UNION-NATU, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-88-184 October 13, 1989 - CALI A. IMPAO, ET AL. v. JACOSALEM D. MAKILALA

  • G.R. No. 69307 October 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANDIDO ROBANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76431 October 16, 1989 - FORTUNE MOTORS, (PHILS.), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78085 October 16, 1989 - ROYAL CROWN INTERNATIONALE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78389 October 16, 1989 - JOSE LUIS MARTIN C. GASCON, ET AL. v. JOKER T. ARROYO

  • G.R. No. 84294 October 16, 1989 - BA FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83138 October 17, 1989 - AMALIO L. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49852 October 19, 1989 - EMILIA TENGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51207 October 19, 1989 - CATALINA VDA. DE CARREON, ET AL. v. HERMILA CARTAGENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84163 October 19, 1989 - LITO VINO v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 85839 October 19, 1989 - EMMANUEL S. LICUP, ET AL. v. UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73162 October 23, 1989 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78050 October 23, 1989 - CAESAR U. SOMOSO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86657 October 23, 1989 - PRECISION ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78538 October 25, 1989 - BELLA S.D. UY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 36155 October 26, 1989 - HERMINIA MONTINOLA, ET AL. v. CARLOS Y. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76873 October 26, 1989 - DOROTEA UYGUANGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77243 October 26, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ASSOCIACION BENEVOLA de CEBU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80030 October 26, 1989 - ROGELIO A. MIRANDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83609 October 26, 1989 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59228 October 27, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE V. ATENCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74287 October 27, 1989 - AGUSTIN FLORES, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79039-41 October 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO ALTERADO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81467 October 27, 1989 - NARCISO Y. SANTIAGO, JR. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85396 October 27, 1989 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86362-63 October 27, 1989 - RAMON D. DUREMDES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88211 October 27, 1989 - FERDINAND E. MARCOS, ET AL. v. RAUL MANGLAPUS, ET AL.