Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE v. ELY GARCIA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 194410 2015-10-14	OCEAN EAST AGENCY v. ALLAN I. LOPEZ PERALTA, J.
Redundancy exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the enterprise.[16] A redundant position is one rendered superfluous by any number of factors, such as over hiring of workers, decreased volume of business, dropping of a particular product line previously manufactured by the company, or phasing-out of a service activity previously undertaken by the business.[17] Under these factors, the employer has no legal obligation to keep in its payroll more employees than are necessary for the operation of its business.[18] Even if a business is doing well, an employer can still validly dismiss an employee from the service due to redundancy if that employee's position has already become in excess of what the employer's enterprise requires.[19]
	GR No. 182475 2012-11-21	LENN MORALES v. NLRC PEREZ, J.
Given Morales' previous record of not reporting for work for one whole week without prior leave of absence while assigned as reliever in its Borongan, Samar Branch,[33] we find that Metrobank cannot be faulted for including him in the list of employees covered by the SSP. The rule is settled that "the determination that the employee's services are no longer necessary or sustainable and, therefore, properly terminable for being redundant is an exercise of business judgment of the employer."[34] "While it is true that management may not, under the guise of invoking its prerogative, ease out employees and defeat their constitutional right to security of tenure,"[35] the wisdom and soundness of such characterization or decision is not subject to discretionary review unless a violation of law or arbitrary or malicious action is shown.[36] Against Morales' bare assertion that he was arbitrarily and maliciously terminated from service, Metrobank was able to establish that its action was based on the fair application of a criterion established in connection with the implementation of a well-thought redundancy program. For these reasons, we find that the CA cannot be faulted for upholding the NLRC's finding that Morales' termination pursuant to the SSP was valid.
	GR No. 182018 2012-10-10	NORKIS TRADING CORPORATION v. JOAQUIN BUENAVISTA REYES, J.
The rule in appeals in labor cases provides that the CA can grant a petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed decision or resolution, committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously, whimsically or arbitrarily disregarding evidence which is material or decisive of the controversy.[62] Significantly, the Secretary of Labor had already affirmed Regional Director Balanag's Order when the appeal from the LA's rulings was resolved. In the NLRC Resolution dated December 18, 2003, the Commission nonetheless merely held: The photocopies of the Order of the Honorable Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment dated February 7, 2002 and the Order of the Regional Director of the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment finding the existence of labor-only contracting between respondent NORKIS [Trading] and respondent PASAKA do not provide sufficient basis to disturb Our Decision. We are not convinced that the facts and evidence, which are totally distinct from this case and which were presented in a separate proceedings and before another Office, would be a sufficient and valid basis to divest the Labor Arbiter a quo of his authority which undoubtedly the law vests upon him as his exclusive jurisdiction. The jurisdiction conferred by Article 217 of the Labor Code upon the Labor Arbiter is "original and exclusive", and his authority to hear and decide case[s] vested upon him is to the exclusion of any other court or quasi-judicial body. By reason of their training, experience, and expertise, Labor Arbiters are in a better position to resolve controversies, for which they are conferred original and exclusive jurisdiction by law. Even Article 218 of the Labor Code does not empower the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment to share original and exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Labor Arbiter by Article 217 x x x.[63]
	GR No. 177816 2011-08-03	NIPPON HOUSING PHIL. INC. v. MAIAH ANGELA LEYNES PEREZ, J.
With no other client aside from BGCC for the building management side of its business, we find that NHPI was acting well within its prerogatives when it eventually terminated Leynes' services on the ground of redundancy. One of the recognized authorized causes for the termination of employment, redundancy exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the business enterprise.[45] A redundant position is one rendered superfluous by any number of factors, such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business, dropping of a particular product line previously manufactured by the company or phasing out of service activity priorly undertaken by the business.[46] It has been held that the exercise of business judgment to characterize an employee's service as no longer necessary or sustainable is not subject to discretionary review where, as here, it is exercised there is no showing of violation of the law or arbitrariness or malice on the part of the employer.[47] An employer has no legal obligation to keep more employees than are necessary for the operation of its business.[48]
	GR No. 165381 2011-02-09	NELSON A. CULILI v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
However, an employer cannot simply declare that it has become overmanned and dismiss its employees without producing adequate proof to sustain its claim of redundancy.[38] Among the requisites of a valid redundancy program are: (1) the good faith of the employer in abolishing the redundant position; and (2) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant,[39] such as but not limited to: preferred status, efficiency, and seniority.[40]
	GR No. 163091 2010-10-06	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL U. DEL VILLAR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The determination that the employee's services are no longer necessary or sustainable and, therefore, properly terminable for being redundant is an exercise of business judgment of the employer. The wisdom or soundness of this judgment is not subject to discretionary review of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, provided there is no violation of law and no showing that it was prompted by an arbitrary or malicious act. In other words, it is not enough for a company to merely declare that it has become overmanned. It must produce adequate proof of such redundancy to justify the dismissal of the affected employees.[34]
	GR No. 165923 2010-09-29	SHIMIZU PHILS. CONTRACTORS v. VIRGILIO P. CALLANTA DEL CASTILLO, J.
At the outset, the power of the CA to review a decision of the NLRC "in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court does not normally include an inquiry into the correctness of the NLRC's evaluation of the evidence."[21] However, under certain circumstances, the CA is allowed to review the factual findings or the legal conclusions of the NLRC in order to determine whether these findings are supported by the evidence presented and the conclusions derived therefrom are accurately ascertained.[22] It has been held that "[i]t is within the jurisdiction of the CA x x x to review the findings of the NLRC."[23]
	GR Nos. 164813 and 174590 2009-08-14	LOWE v. CA CARPIO, J.
The Court recognizes that a host of relevant factors comes into play in determining who among the employees should be retained or separated.[23] Among the accepted criteria in implementing a redundancy program are: (1) preferred status; (2) efficiency; and (3) seniority.[24]
	GR No. 166760 2008-08-22	EASTRIDGE GOLF CLUB v. EASTRIDGE GOLF CLUB AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Retrenchment or lay-off is the termination of employment initiated by the employer, through no fault of the employees and without prejudice to the latter, during periods of business recession, industrial depression, or seasonal fluctuations, or during lulls occasioned by lack of orders, shortage of materials, conversion of the plant for a new production program or the introduction of new methods or more efficient machinery, or of automation.[37] It is an exercise of management prerogative which the Court upholds if compliant with certain substantive and procedural requirements,[38] namely: That retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and it is proven, by sufficient and convincing evidence such as the employer's financial statements audited by an independent and credible external auditor,[39] that such losses are substantial and not merely flimsy[40] and actual or reasonably imminent; [41] and that retrenchment is the only effective measure to prevent such imminent losses; [42]