18

Phil. Employ Services and Resources, Inc. vs. Joseph Paramio, et. al.
G.R. No. 144786, April 15, 2004

Facts:

Respondents herein filed separate complaints before the NLRC Arbitration

Branch against Bayani Fontanilla for illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime
pay, refund of placement fee, tax refund, refund of plane fares, attorney’s fees
and litigation expenses. They argued that under Section 10, Republic Act No.
8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
1995, PSRI was solidarily liable with Kuan Yuan for their claims. Since they were
repatriated prior to the expiration of their respective contracts for no valid
reason, PSRI was liable to pay their salaries for the unexpired portion of their
contracts. The petitioner denied any liability on the respondents’ claims and
asserted that the latter were validly dismissed. The Labor Arbiter held that the
respondents were illegally dismissed.

The NLRC issued a resolution finding that the respondents were legally
dismissed and set aside the decision of the labor arbiter. Dissatisfied, the
respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution, but the NLRC
denied the motion. On appeal, the CA held that respondents were constructively
dismissed, as the petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that the aforesaid
petitioners voluntarily resigned from work.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents were illegally dismissed.

Held:
Yes. Applying the law and the rule, the employer is burdened to prove that
the employee was suffering from a disease which prevented his continued
employment, or that the employee’s wound prevented his continued
employment. Section 8, Rule 1, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code requires a certification from competent public authority that the
employee was heavily wounded and had lost the ability to work.

In the case at bar, the petitioner did not adduce in evidence a certification
from a public authority to the effect that respondent Paramio had been heavily
wounded. It also failed to show that by reason of his thumb injury, he lost the
ability to work. Respondent Paramio was not, for a time, able to perform the
backbreaking tasks required by his manager. However, despite his injury, he
managed to perform the other tasks assigned to him, including carrying of 30-
kilogram containers with the exception of the work in the Lupo Department. The
fact that respondent Paramio was assigned to perform the second hardest and
heaviest task in the company shows the heartlessness of the company’s manager.
Despite his wound, the respondent tried to accomplish the work assigned to him.

19
Zel T. Zafra, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 139013, September 17, 2002

Facts:
Zel T. Zafra was hired by PLDT as Operations Analyst II while Edwin B.
Ecarma was hired as Junior Operations Analyst I. Petitioners were chosen for the
OMC Specialist and System Software Acceptance Training Program in Germany
in preparation for “ALCATEL 1000 S12,” a World Bank-financed PLDT project in
line with its Zero Backlog Program.

While petitioners were in Germany, Mr. R. Relucio, SwitchNet Division

Manager, requested advice, through an inter-office memorandum, from the Cebu
and Davao Provincial Managers if any of the training participants were
interested to transfer to the Sampaloc ROMCC to address the operational
requirements therein. The transfer was to be made before the ALCATEL
exchanges and operations and maintenance center in Sampaloc would become
operational.

Upon petitioners’ return from Germany, a certain Mr. W.P. Acantillado,

Senior Manager of the PLDT Cebu Plant, informed them about the memorandum.
They balked at the idea, but PLDT, through an inter-office memorandum,
proceeded to transfer petitioners to the Sampaloc ROMCC.

Issue:
Whether or not the employees transfer is an absolute right for the
employers.

Held:
No. The fact that petitioners, in their application for employment, agreed to
be transferred or assigned to any branch should not be taken in isolation, but
rather in conjunction with the established company practice in PLDT. The
standard operating procedure in PLDT is to inform personnel regarding the
nature and location of their future assignments after training abroad. The need
for the dissemination of notice of transfer to employees before sending them
abroad for training should be deemed necessary and later to have ripened into a
company practice or policy that could no longer be peremptorily withdrawn,
discontinued, or eliminated by the employer. Needless to say, had they known
about their pre-planned reassignments, petitioners could have declined the
foreign training intended for personnel assigned to the Manila office. The lure of
a foreign trip is fleeting while a reassignment from Cebu to Manila entails major
and permanent readjustments for petitioners and their families.

20
Nelson A. Culili vs. Eastern Telecommunications Phils, Inc., et. al.
G.R. No. 165381, February 9, 2011

Facts:
ETPI implemented a Right-Sizing Program which consisted of two phases:
the first phase involved the reduction of ETPI’s workforce to only those
employees that were necessary and which ETPI could sustain; the second phase
entailed a company-wide reorganization which would result in the transfer,
merger, absorption or abolition of certain departments of ETPI. ETPI offered the
Special Retirement Program and the corresponding retirement package to the
102 employees who qualified for the program. Only Culili rejected the offer. After
the successful implementation of the first phase, ETPI proceeded with the second
phase which necessitated the abolition, transfer and merger of a number of
ETPI’s departments. Among the departments abolished was the Service Quality
Department. The functions of the Customer Premises Equipment Management
Unit, Culili’s unit, were absorbed by the Business and Consumer Accounts
Department. The abolition of the Service Quality Department rendered the
specialized functions of a Senior Technician unnecessary. Hence, Culili’s position
was abolished due to redundancy and his functions were absorbed by another
employee already with the Business and Consumer Accounts Department. Culili
discovered later on that his name was omitted in ETPI’s New Table of
Organization.

Culili alleged that neither he nor the DOLE were formally notified of his
termination. Culili claimed that he only found out about it when Vice President
Virgilio Garcia handed him a copy of the letter, after he was barred from entering
ETPI’s premises by its armed security personnel when he tried to report for
work. Moreover, Culili asserted that ETPI had contracted out the services he
used to perform to a labor-only contractor which not only proved that his
functions had not become unnecessary, but which also violated their CBA and the
Labor Code. ETPI denied singling Culili out for termination. ETPI claimed that
while it is true that they offered the Special Retirement Package to reduce their
workforce to a sustainable level, this was only the first phase of the Right-Sizing
Program to which ETEU agreed. The second phase intended to simplify and
streamline the functions of the departments and employees of ETPI. The
abolition of Culili’s department - the Service Quality Department - and the
absorption of its functions by the Business and Consumer Accounts Department
were in line with the program’s goals as the Business and Consumer Accounts
Department was more economical and versatile and it was flexible enough to
handle the limited functions of the Service Quality Department. ETPI averred
that since Culili did not avail of the Special Retirement Program and his position
was subsequently declared redundant, it had no choice but to terminate Culili.

Issue:
Whether or not the employer is guilty of unfair labor practice.

Held:
No. Unfair labor practice refers to ‘acts that violate the workers’ right to
organize. The prohibited acts are related to the workers right to self-
organization and to the observance of a CBA. There should be no dispute that all
the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the
workers’ right to self-organization. Thus, an employer may only be held liable for
unfair labor practice if it can be shown that his acts affect in whatever manner
the right of his employees to self-organize. There is no showing that ETPI, in
implementing its Right-Sizing Program, was motivated by ill will, bad faith or
malice, or that it was aimed at interfering with its employees’ right to self-
organize. In fact, ETPI negotiated and consulted with ETEU before implementing
its Right-Sizing Program.

21
Abbott Laboratories,Phils. Inc. vs. Manuel Torralba, et. al.
G.R. No. 229746, October 11, 2017

Facts:
Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on the ground that Abbott
allegedly did not observe the criteria of preference of status, efficiency, and
seniority in determining who among its redundant employees are to be retained.

The Labor Arbiter ruled that the respondents were illegally dismissed.
Accordingly, Abbott found wanting the evidence presented to establish that
Abbott followed the required preference criteria of status, efficiency, and
proficiency in determining who among the employees are going to be retained.

Meanwhile, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and ruled
that the Deeds precluded them from claiming that they were illegally dismissed.

The Court of Appeals reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbtier. The
appellate court noted that there was no valid redundancy program because
Abbott failed to prove one of its requisites – that it used a fair and reasonable
criteria in the selection of the employees who will be dismissed.

Issue:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding of the Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC that the redundancy implemented by petitioners was invalid.

Held:
The petition is denied. No fair and reasonable criteria was utilized in
determining who among the employees are to be redundated. Redundancy exists
where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded
by the actual requirement of the enterprise. For a valid implementation of a
redundancy program, the employer must comply with the following requisites:
(1) written notice served on both the employee and the DOLE at least one month
prior to the intended date of termination; (2) payment of separation pay
equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of
service, whichever is higher; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant position;
and (4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be
declared redundant.