FLIGHT
ATTENDANTS AND G.R.
No. 178083
STEWARDS
ASSOCIATION OF
THE
Petitioner, Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,
Nachura, and
Leonardo-De
Castro,* JJ.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.,
PATRIA CHIONG and COURT Promulgated:
OF APPEALS,
Respondents.
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This petition
for review on certiorari assails the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 23, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 87956 which
affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission’s (NLRC) decision setting
aside the Labor Arbiter’s findings of illegal retrenchment and ordering the
reinstatement of the retrenched Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL)
employee-members of petitioner Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of
the Philippines (FASAP), with payment of backwages, moral and exemplary
damages, and attorney’s fees. Also assailed is the
Petitioner
FASAP is the duly certified collective bargaining representative of PAL flight
attendants and stewards, or collectively known as PAL cabin crew personnel. Respondent PAL is a domestic corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the
On
In
implementing the retrenchment scheme, PAL adopted its so-called “Plan 14” whereby
PAL’s fleet of aircraft would be reduced from 54 to 14, thus requiring the
services of only 654 cabin crew personnel.[4] PAL admits that the retrenchment is wholly
premised upon such reduction in fleet,[5] and
to “the strike staged by PAL pilots since this action also translated into a
reduction of flights.”[6] PAL claims that the scheme resulted in “savings
x x x amounting to approximately P24 million per month – savings that would
greatly alleviate PAL’s financial crisis.”[7]
Prior to
the full implementation of the assailed retrenchment program, FASAP and PAL
conducted a series of consultations and meetings and explored all possibilities
of cushioning the impact of the impending reduction in cabin crew personnel. However, the parties failed to agree on how
the scheme would be implemented. Thus PAL
unilaterally resolved to utilize the criteria set forth in Section 112 of the
PAL-FASAP Collective Bargaining Agreement[8]
(CBA) in retrenching cabin crew personnel: that is, that retrenchment shall be
based on the individual employee’s efficiency
rating and seniority.
PAL
determined the cabin crew personnel efficiency ratings through an evaluation of
the individual cabin crew member’s overall performance for the year 1997 alone.[9] Their respective performance during previous
years, i.e., the whole duration of service
with PAL of each cabin crew personnel, was not considered. The factors taken into account on whether the cabin
crew member would be retrenched, demoted or retained were: 1) the existence of
excess sick leaves; 2) the crew member’s being physically overweight; 3)
seniority; and 4) previous suspensions or warnings imposed.[10]
While consultations
between FASAP and PAL were ongoing, the latter began implementing its
retrenchment program by initially terminating the services of 140 probationary
cabin attendants only to rehire them in April 1998. Moreover, their employment was made permanent
and regular.[11]
On
Meanwhile,
in June 1998, PAL was placed under corporate rehabilitation and a
rehabilitation plan was approved per Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Order dated June 23, 1998 in SEC Case No. 06-98-6004.[12]
On September
4, 1998, PAL, through its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Lucio Tan,
made an offer to transfer shares of stock to its employees and three seats in
its Board of Directors, on the condition that all the existing Collective
Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) with its employees would be suspended for 10 years,
but it was rejected by the employees. On
On
On
1. Each PAL
employee shall be granted 60,000 shares of stock with a par value of P5.00,
from Mr. Lucio Tan’s shareholdings, with three (3) seats in the PAL Board and
an additional seat from government shares as indicated by His Excellency;
2. Likewise,
PALEA shall, as far as practicable, be granted adequate representation in
committees or bodies which deal with matters affecting terms and conditions of
employment;
3. To enhance
and strengthen labor-management relations, the existing Labor-Management
Coordinating Council shall be reorganized and revitalized, with adequate
representation from both PAL management and PALEA;
4. To assure
investors and creditors of industrial peace, PALEA agrees, subject to the
ratification by the general membership, (to) the suspension of the PAL-PALEA
CBA for a period of ten (10) years, provided the following safeguards are in
place:
a. PAL shall
continue recognizing PALEA as the duly certified bargaining agent of the
regular rank-and-file ground employees of the Company;
b. The ‘union
shop/maintenance of membership’ provision under the PAL-PALEA CBA shall be
respected.
c. No salary
deduction, with full medical benefits.
5. PAL shall
grant the benefits under the
6. PALEA
members who have been retrenched but have not received separation benefits
shall be granted priority in the hiring/rehiring of employees.
7. In the
absence of applicable Company rule or regulation, the provisions of the Labor
Code shall apply.[15]
In a
referendum conducted on
Meanwhile,
in November 1998, or five months after the
In
December 1998, PAL submitted a “stand-alone” rehabilitation plan to the SEC by
which it undertook a recovery on its own while keeping its options open for the
entry of a strategic partner in the future. Accordingly, it submitted an amended
rehabilitation plan to the SEC with a proposed revised business and financial
restructuring plan, which required the infusion of US$200 million in new equity
into the airline.
On
On
On
On
On
Respondents
appealed to the NLRC which reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC directed the lifting of the writ of
injunction and to vacate the directive setting aside the notices of
retrenchment and reinstating the dismissed cabin crew to their respective
positions and in the PAL payroll.[28]
FASAP
filed its Position Paper[29]
on
Meanwhile,
instead of being dismissed in accordance with the Kurangking case, the FASAP case (NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-05100-98) was
consolidated with the following cases:
1. Ramon and
Marian Joy Camahort v. PAL, et al. (NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-07-05854-98);
2. Erlinda
Arevalo and Chonas Santos v. PAL, et al. (NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-07-09793-98);
and
3. Victor
Lanza v. PAL, et al. (NLRC-NCR Case No.00-04-04254-99).
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Office renders
judgment declaring that Philippine Airlines, Inc., illegally retrenched One
Thousand Four Hundred (1,400) cabin attendants including flight pursers for
effecting the retrenchment program in a despotic and whimsical manner. Philippine
Airlines, Inc. is likewise hereby ordered to:
1. Reinstate
the cabin attendants retrenched and/or demoted to their previous positions;
2. Pay the
concerned cabin attendants their full backwages from the time they were
illegally dismissed/retrenched up to their actual reinstatements;
3. Pay moral
and exemplary damages in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00); and
4. Ten (10%)
per cent of the total monetary award as and by way of attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED.[34]
Respondents
appealed to the NLRC. Meanwhile, FASAP moved for the implementation of the
reinstatement aspect of the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Despite respondents’ opposition, the Labor
Arbiter issued a writ of execution with respect to the reinstatement directive
in his decision. Respondents moved to quash the writ, but the Labor Arbiter
denied the same. Again, respondents took
issue with the NLRC.
Meanwhile,
on
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated
With respect to complainant Ms. Begonia Blanco, her
demotion is hereby declared illegal and respondent PAL is ordered to pay her
salary differential covering the period from the time she was downgraded in
July 1998 up to the time she resigned in October 1999.
Respondent PAL is likewise ordered to pay the separation
benefits to those complainants who have not received their separation pay and
to pay the balance to those who have received partial separation pay.
The Order of the Labor Arbiter dated
Annexes “A” and “B” are considered part of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.[36]
FASAP
moved for reconsideration but it was denied; hence it filed an appeal to the
Court of Appeals which was denied in the herein assailed Decision.
FASAP’s
motion for reconsideration was likewise denied; hence, the instant petition
raising the following issues:
WHETHER
OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE
FIRST,
the record shows that PAL failed or
neglected to adopt less drastic cost-cutting measures before resorting to
retrenchment. No less than the
Supreme Court held that resort to less drastic cost-cutting measures is an
indispensable requirement for a valid retrenchment x x x.
SECOND,
PAL arbitrarily and capriciously singled
out the year 1997 as a reference in its alleged assessment of employee
efficiency. With this, it totally disregarded the employee’s performance
during the years prior to 1997. This resulted in the unreasonable and unfair
retrenchment or demotion of several flight pursers and attendants who showed
impeccable service records during the years prior to 1997.
THIRD,
seniority was totally disregarded in the
selection of employees to be retrenched, which is a clear and willful
violation of the CBA.
FOURTH,
PAL maliciously represented in the
proceedings below that it could only operate on a fleet of fourteen (14) planes
in order to justify the retrenchment scheme. Yet, the evidence on record revealed
that PAL operated a fleet of twenty two (22) planes. In fact, after having
illegally retrenched the unfortunate flight attendants and pursers, PAL rehired
those who were capriciously dismissed and even hired from the outside just to
fulfill their manning requirements.
FIFTH,
PAL did not use any fair and reasonable
criteria in effecting retrenchment. If there really was any, the same was
applied arbitrarily, if not discriminatorily.
FINALLY,
and perhaps the worst transgression of FASAP’s rights, PAL used retrenchment to veil its union-busting motives and struck
at the heart of FASAP when it retrenched seven (7) of its twelve (12) officers
and demoted three (3) others.[37] (Emphasis
supplied)
These
issues boil down to the question of whether PAL’s retrenchment scheme was justified.
It is a
settled rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Court’s power of review, the
Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the
re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during trial. However, there are several exceptions to this
rule[38] such
as when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter differ from those of the NLRC,
as in the instant case, which opens the door to a review by this Court.[39]
Under the
Labor Code, retrenchment or reduction of employees is authorized as follows:
ART. 283. 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 the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker
affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least
his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of
service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in
cases of closures 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 pay or at least one-half (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.
The law
recognizes the right of every business entity to reduce its work force if the
same is made necessary by compelling economic factors which would endanger its
existence or stability.[40] Where appropriate and where conditions are in
accord with law and jurisprudence, the Court has authorized valid reductions in
the work force to forestall business losses, the hemorrhaging of capital, or
even to recognize an obvious reduction in the volume of business which has
rendered certain employees redundant.[41]
Nevertheless,
while it is true that the exercise of this right is a prerogative of
management, there must be faithful compliance with substantive and procedural
requirements of the law and jurisprudence, for retrenchment strikes at the very
heart of the worker’s employment, the lifeblood upon which he and his family
owe their survival. Retrenchment is only
a measure of last resort, when other less drastic means have been tried and
found to be inadequate.[42]
The burden
clearly falls upon the employer to prove economic or business losses with sufficient
supporting evidence. Its failure to
prove these reverses or losses necessarily means that the employee’s dismissal
was not justified.[43] Any claim of actual or potential business
losses must satisfy certain established standards, all of which must concur,
before any reduction of personnel becomes legal.[44] These are:
(1) That
retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses
which, if already incurred, are not merely de
minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected,
are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the
employer;
(2) That the
employer served written notice both to the employees and to the Department of
Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of
retrenchment;
(3) That the
employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one (1)
month pay or at least one-half (˝) month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher;
(4) That the
employer exercises its prerogative to retrench employees in good faith for the
advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees’
right to security of tenure; and,
(5) That the
employer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed
and who would be retained among the employees, such as status, efficiency,
seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.[45]
In view of
the facts and the issues raised, the resolution of the instant petition hinges
on a determination of the existence of the first,
fourth and the fifth elements set forth above, as well as compliance therewith by
PAL, taking to mind that the burden of proof in retrenchment cases lies with
the employer in showing valid cause for dismissal;[46] that
legitimate business reasons exist to justify retrenchment.[47]
FIRST
ELEMENT: That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent
business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only
expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by
the employer.
The
employer’s prerogative to layoff employees is subject to certain limitations. In Lopez
Sugar Corporation v. Federation of Free Workers,[48]
we held that:
Firstly,
the losses expected should be substantial and not merely de minimis in extent. If the
loss purportedly sought to be forestalled by retrenchment is clearly shown to
be insubstantial and inconsequential in character, the bona fide nature of the retrenchment would appear to be seriously
in question. Secondly, the substantial
loss apprehended must be reasonably imminent, as such imminence can be
perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer. There should, in other words, be a certain
degree of urgency for the retrenchment, which is after all a drastic recourse
with serious consequences for the livelihood of the employees retired or
otherwise laid-off. Because of the
consequential nature of retrenchment, it must, thirdly, be reasonably necessary
and likely to effectively prevent the expected losses. The employer should have
taken other measures prior or parallel to retrenchment to forestall losses,
i.e., cut other costs than labor costs. An employer who, for instance, lays off
substantial numbers of workers while continuing to dispense fat executive
bonuses and perquisites or so-called “golden parachutes,” can scarcely claim to
be retrenching in good faith to avoid losses. To impart operational meaning to
the constitutional policy of providing “full protection” to labor, the
employer’s prerogative to bring down labor costs by retrenching must be
exercised essentially as a measure of last resort, after less drastic means - e.g., reduction of both management and
rank-and-file bonuses and salaries, going on reduced time, improving
manufacturing efficiencies, trimming of marketing and advertising costs, etc. -
have been tried and found wanting.
Lastly, but certainly not the least important, alleged
losses if already realized, and the expected imminent losses sought to be
forestalled, must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence.
The law
speaks of serious business losses or financial reverses. Sliding incomes
or decreasing gross revenues are not necessarily losses, much less serious
business losses within the meaning of the law. The fact that an employer
may have sustained a net loss, such loss, per
se, absent any other evidence on its impact on the business, nor on
expected losses that would have been incurred had operations been continued,
may not amount to serious business losses mentioned in the law. The employer must show that its losses
increased through a period of time and that the condition of the company will
not likely improve in the near future,[49] or
that it expected no abatement of its losses in the coming years.[50] Put simply, not every loss incurred or
expected to be incurred by a company will justify retrenchment.[51]
The
employer must also exhaust all other means to avoid further losses without
retrenching its employees.[52] Retrenchment is a means of last resort; it is
justified only when all other less drastic means have been tried and found
insufficient.[53] Even assuming that the employer has actually
incurred losses by reason of the Asian economic crisis, the retrenchment is not
completely justified if there is no showing that the retrenchment was the last
recourse resorted to.[54] Where the only less drastic measure that the
employer undertook was the rotation work scheme, or the
three-day-work-per-employee-per-week schedule, and it did not endeavor at other
measures, such as cost reduction, lesser investment on raw materials,
adjustment of the work routine to avoid scheduled power failure, reduction of
the bonuses and salaries of both management and rank-and-file, improvement of
manufacturing efficiency, and trimming of marketing and advertising costs, the
claim that retrenchment was done in good faith to avoid losses is belied.[55]
Alleged
losses if already realized, and the expected imminent losses sought to be
forestalled, must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence. The reason for requiring this is readily
apparent: any less exacting standard of proof would render too easy the abuse
of this ground for termination of services of employees; scheming employers might
be merely feigning business losses or reverses in order to ease out employees.[56]
In establishing
a unilateral claim of actual or potential losses, financial statements audited
by independent external auditors constitute the normal method of proof of profit
and loss performance of a company.[57] The condition of business losses justifying
retrenchment is normally shown by audited financial documents like yearly
balance sheets and profit and loss statements as well as annual income tax
returns. Financial statements must be
prepared and signed by independent auditors; otherwise, they may be assailed as
self-serving.[58] A Statement of Profit and Loss submitted to
prove alleged losses, without the accompanying signature of a certified public
accountant or audited by an independent auditor, is nothing but a self-serving
document which ought to be treated as a mere scrap of paper devoid of any
probative value.[59]
The
audited financial statements should be presented before the Labor Arbiter who
is in the position to evaluate evidence. They may not be submitted belatedly with the
Court of Appeals, because the admission of evidence is outside the sphere of
the appellate court’s certiorari jurisdiction. Neither can this Court admit in
evidence audited financial statements, or make a ruling on the question of
whether the employer incurred substantial losses justifying retrenchment on the
basis thereof, as this Court is not a trier of facts.[60] Even so, this Court may not be compelled to
accept the contents of said documents blindly and without thinking.[61]
The requirement
of evidentiary substantiation dictates that not even the affidavit of the Assistant
to the General Manager is admissible to prove losses, as the same is
self-serving.[62] Thus, in Central
Azucarera de la Carlota v. National Labor Relations Commission,[63] the Court ruled that the mere citation by the employer of the economic
setback suffered by the sugar industry as a whole cannot, in the absence of adequate,
credible and persuasive evidence, justify its retrenchment program,[64]
thus:
A litany of woes, from a labor strike way back in 1982 to
the various crises endured by the sugar industry, droughts, the 1983
assassination of former Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr., high crop loan interests,
spiraling prices of fertilizers and spare parts, the depression of sugar prices
in the world market, cutback in the U.S. sugar quota, abandonment of productive
areas because of the insurgency problem and the absence of fair and consistent
government policies may have contributed to the unprecedented decline in sugar
production in the country, but there is no solid evidence that they translated
into specific and substantial losses that would necessitate retrenchment. Just exactly what negative effects were borne
by petitioner as a result, petitioner failed to underscore.[65]
In Anino v. National Labor Relations Commission,[66]
the Court also held that the employer’s claim – that retrenchment was
undertaken as a measure of self-preservation to prevent losses brought about by
the continuing decline of nickel prices and export volume in the mining
industry, as well as its allegation that the reduction of excise taxes on
mining from 5% to 1% on a graduated basis as provided under Republic Act No.
7729 was a clear recognition by the government of the industry’s worsening
economic difficulties – was a bare claim in the absence of evidence of actual
losses in its business operations.[67]
In the
instant case, PAL failed to substantiate its claim of actual and imminent
substantial losses which would justify the retrenchment of more than 1,400 of
its cabin crew personnel. Although the
Philippine economy was gravely affected by the Asian financial crisis, however,
it cannot be assumed that it has likewise brought PAL to the brink of
bankruptcy. Likewise, the fact that PAL underwent
corporate rehabilitation does not automatically justify the retrenchment of its
cabin crew personnel.
Records
show that PAL was not even aware of its actual financial position when it
implemented its retrenchment program. It
initially decided to cut its fleet size to only 14 (“Plan 14”) and based on
said plan, it retrenched more than 1,400 of its cabin crew personnel. Later on, however, it abandoned its “Plan 14” and
decided to retain 22 units of aircraft (“Plan 22”). Unfortunately, it has retrenched more than
what was necessary. PAL admits that:
[U]pon
reconsideration and with some optimistic prospects for operations, the Company
(PAL) decided not to implement “Plan 14” and instead implemented “Plan 22,”
which would involve a fleet of 22 planes. Since “Plan 14” was abandoned, the
Company deemed it appropriate to recall back into employment employees it had
previously retrenched. Thus, some of the employees who were initially laid off
were recalled back to duty, the basis of which was passing the 1997 efficiency
rating to meet the Company’s operational requirements.[68]
PAL decided
to adopt “Plan 14” on
This only
proves that PAL was not aware of the true state of its finances at the time it
implemented the assailed massive retrenchment scheme. It embarked on the mass dismissal without
first undertaking a well-considered study on the proposed retrenchment scheme. This view is underscored by the fact that previously,
PAL terminated the services of 140 probationary cabin attendants, but rehired
them almost immediately and even converted their employment into permanent and
regular, even as a massive retrenchment was already looming in the horizon.
To prove
that PAL was financially distressed, it could have submitted its audited
financial statements but it failed to present the same with the Labor Arbiter. Instead, it narrated a litany of woes without
offering any evidence to show that they translated into specific and
substantial losses that would necessitate retrenchment, thus:
1. It is a
matter of public knowledge that PAL had been suffering severe financial losses
that reached its most critical condition in 1998 when its liabilities amounted
to about P90,642,933,919.00, while its assets amounted to only about
P85,109,075,351.00. The precarious situation prompted PAL to adopt cost-cutting
measures to prevent it from becoming totally bankrupt, including the reduction
of its flight fleet from 56 to 14 aircrafts and the retrenchment of unneeded
employees.
x x x x
26. To save its
business, PAL had every right to undergo a retrenchment program immediately.
PAL did not need, by law, to justify or explain to FASAP the reasons for the
retrenchment before it could implement it. Proof of actual financial losses
incurred by the company is not a condition sine
qua non for retrenchment.[70]
This bare
and unilateral claim does not suffice. The
Labor Arbiter’s finding that PAL “amply satisfied the rules imposed by law and
jurisprudence that sustain retrenchment,” is without basis, absent the
presentation of documentary evidence to that effect. In Saballa
v. National Labor Relations Commission,[71]
we ruled that where the decision of the Labor Arbiter did not indicate the specific bases for such crucial finding
that the employer was suffering business reverses, the same was arbitrary. We ratiocinated
therein that since the employer insisted that its critical financial condition
was the central and pivotal reason for its retrenchment, there was no reason
why it should have neglected or refused to submit its audited financial
statements.
PAL’s
assertion – that its finances were gravely compromised as a result of the 1997
Asian financial crisis and the pilots’ strike – lacks basis due to the non-presentation
of its audited financial statements to prove actual or imminent losses. Also, the fact that PAL was placed under
receivership did not excuse it from submitting to the labor authorities copies
of its audited financial statements to prove the urgency, necessity and extent,
of its retrenchment program. PAL should have presented its audited
financial statements for the years immediately preceding and during which the
retrenchment was carried out. Law and
jurisprudence require that alleged losses or expected imminent losses must be
proved by sufficient and convincing evidence.
Likewise,
PAL has not shown to the Court’s satisfaction that the pilots’ strike had
gravely affected its operations. It
offered no proof to show the correlation between the pilots’ strike and its
alleged financial difficulties. In Guerrero v. National Labor Relations
Commission,[72]
the
Court held that where the employer failed to prove its claim with competent
evidence that the employees’ strike paralyzed its operations and resulted in
the withdrawal of its clients’ orders, the retrenchment of its employees must
be declared illegal.[73]
Moreover, as
the Court ruled in the case of EMCO
Plywood Corporation,[74] it
must be shown that the employer resorted to other means but these proved to be
insufficient or inadequate, such as cost reduction, lesser investment on raw
materials, adjustment of the work routine to avoid scheduled power failure,
reduction of the bonuses and salaries of both management and rank-and-file,
improvement of manufacturing efficiency, and trimming of marketing and
advertising costs. In the instant case,
there is no proof that PAL engaged in cost-cutting measures other than a mere
reduction in its fleet of aircraft and the retrenchment of 5,000 of its
personnel.
The only
manifestation of PAL’s attempt at exhausting other possible measures besides
retrenchment was when it conducted negotiations and consultations with FASAP
which, however, ended nowhere. None of
the plans and suggestions taken up during the meetings was implemented. On the
other hand, PAL’s September 4, 1998 offer of shares of stock to its employees was
adopted belatedly, or only after its
more than 1,400 cabin crew personnel were retrenched. Besides, this offer can hardly be considered
to be borne of good faith, considering that it was premised on the condition
that, if accepted, all existing CBAs between PAL and its employees would have
to be suspended for 10 years. When the
offer was rejected by the employees, PAL ceased its operations on September 23,
1998. It only resumed business when the
CBA suspension clause was ratified by the employees in a referendum
subsequently conducted.[75] Moreover,
this stock distribution scheme does not do away with PAL’s expenditures or
liabilities, since it has for its sole consideration the commitment to suspend
CBAs with its employees for 10 years. It
did not improve the financial standing of PAL, nor did it result in corporate savings,
vis-ŕ-vis the financial difficulties
it was suffering at the time.
Also, the
claim that PAL saved P24 million monthly due to the implementation of the
retrenchment program does not prove anything; it has not been shown to what
extent or degree such savings benefited PAL, vis-ŕ-vis its total expenditures or its overall financial position.
Likewise, its claim that its liabilities
reached P90 billion, while its assets amounted to P85 billion only – or a debt
to asset ratio of more than 1:1 – may not readily be believed, considering that
it did not submit its audited financial statements. All these allegations are self-serving
evidence.
Interestingly,
PAL submitted its audited financial statements only when the case was the
subject of certiorari proceedings in the Court of Appeals by attaching in its
Comment[76] a
copy of its consolidated audited financial statements for the years 2002, 2003
and 2004.[77] However, these are not the financial
statements that would have shown PAL’s alleged precarious position at the time
it implemented the massive retrenchment scheme in 1998. PAL should have submitted its financial
statements for the years 1997 up to 1999; and not for the years 2002 up to 2004
because these financial statements cover a period markedly distant to the years
in question, which make them irrelevant and unacceptable.
Neither
could PAL claim to suffer from imminent or resultant losses had it not
implemented the retrenchment scheme in 1998. It could not have proved that retrenchment was
necessary to prevent further losses, because immediately thereafter – or in
February 1999[78] – PAL
was on the road to recovery; this is the airline’s bare admission in its
Comment to the instant petition.[79] During that period, it was recalling to duty
cabin crew it had previously retrenched. In March 2000, PAL declared a net
income of P44.2 million. In March 2001, it
reported a profit of P419 million. In
March 2003, it again registered a net income of P295 million.[80] All these facts are anathema to a finding of
financial difficulties.
Finally,
what further belied PAL’s allegation that it was suffering from substantial actual
and imminent losses was the fact that in December 1998, PAL submitted a “stand-alone”
rehabilitation plan to the SEC, and on June 4, 1999, or less than a year after
the retrenchment, the amount of US$200 million was invested directly into PAL
by way of additional capital infusion for its operations.[81] These facts betray PAL’s claim that it was in
dire financial straits. By submitting a
“stand-alone” rehabilitation plan, PAL acknowledged that it could undertake
recovery on its own and that it possessed enough resources to weather the
financial storm, if any.
Thus said,
it was grave error for the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, to
have simply assumed that PAL was in grievous financial state, without requiring
the latter to substantiate such claim. It
bears stressing that in retrenchment cases, the presentation of proof of
financial difficulties through the required documents, preferably audited
financial statements prepared by independent auditors, may not summarily be
done away with.
That FASAP
admitted and took for granted the existence of PAL’s financial woes cannot
excuse the latter from proving to the Court’s satisfaction that indeed it was bleeding
financially. It was the airline’s
obligation to prove that it was in such financial distress; that it was
necessary to implement an appropriate retrenchment scheme; that it had to
undergo a retrenchment program in
proportion to or commensurate with the extent of its financial
distress; and that, it was carrying out the scheme in good faith and without
undermining the security of tenure of its employees. The Court is mindful that the characterization
of an employee’s services as no longer necessary or sustainable, and therefore,
properly terminable, is an exercise of business judgment on the part of the
employer, and that the wisdom or soundness of such characterization or decision
is not subject to discretionary
review, provided of course that violation of law or arbitrary or malicious
action is not shown.[82]
The
foregoing principle holds true with respect to PAL’s claim in its Comment that the
only issue is the manner by which its retrenchment scheme was carried
out because the validity of the scheme has been settled in its favor.[83] Respondents might have confused the right to retrench with its actual retrenchment program, treating
them as one and the same. The first, no
doubt, is a valid prerogative of management; it is a right that exists for all
employers. As to the second, it is
always subject to scrutiny in regard to faithful compliance with substantive
and procedural requirements which the law and jurisprudence have laid down. The right
of an employer to dismiss an employee differs from and should not be confused
with the manner in which such right
is exercised.[84]
FOURTH
ELEMENT: That the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench employees in
good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent
the employees’ right to security of tenure.
Concededly,
retrenchment to prevent losses is an authorized cause for terminating
employment and the decision whether to resort to such move or not is a
management prerogative. However, the
right of an employer to dismiss an employee differs from and should not be
confused with the manner in which such right is exercised. It must not be oppressive and abusive since it
affects one's person and property.[85]
In Indino v. National Labor Relations
Commission,[86]
the Court held that it is
almost an inflexible rule that employers who contemplate terminating the
services of their workers cannot be so arbitrary and ruthless as to find flimsy
excuses for their decisions. This must
be so considering that the dismissal of an employee from work involves not only
the loss of his position but more important, his means of livelihood. Applying
this caveat, it is therefore incumbent for the employer, before putting into
effect any retrenchment process on its work force, to show by convincing
evidence that it was being wrecked by serious financial problems. Simply declaring its state of insolvency or
its impending doom will not be sufficient. To do so would render the security
of tenure of workers and employees illusory. Any employer desirous of ridding itself of its
employees could then easily do so without need to adduce proof in support of
its action. We can not countenance this.
Security of tenure is a right guaranteed
to employees and workers by the Constitution and should not be denied on the
basis of mere speculation.
On the requirement
that the prerogative to retrench must be exercised in good faith, we have ruled
that the hiring of new employees and subsequent rehiring of “retrenched”
employees constitute bad faith;[87] that
the failure of the employer to resort to other less drastic measures than
retrenchment seriously belies its claim that retrenchment was done in good
faith to avoid losses;[88] and
that the demonstrated arbitrariness in the selection of which of its employees
to retrench is further proof of the illegality of the employer’s retrenchment
program, not to mention its bad faith.[89]
When PAL
implemented Plan 22, instead of Plan 14, which was what it had originally made
known to its employees, it could not be said that it acted in a manner
compatible with good faith. It offered
no satisfactory explanation why it abandoned Plan 14; instead, it justified its
actions of subsequently recalling to duty retrenched employees by making it
appear that it was a show of good faith; that it was due to its good corporate nature
that the decision to consider recalling employees was made. The truth, however, is that it was unfair for
PAL to have made such a move; it was capricious and arbitrary, considering that
several thousand employees who had long been working for PAL had lost their
jobs, only to be recalled but assigned to lower positions (i.e., demoted), and,
worse, some as new hires, without due regard for their long years of service
with the airline.
The
irregularity of PAL’s implementation of Plan 14 becomes more apparent when it
rehired 140 probationary cabin attendants whose services it had previously
terminated, and yet proceeded to terminate the services of its permanent cabin
crew personnel.
In sum, we
find that PAL had implemented its retrenchment program in an arbitrary manner
and with evident bad faith, which prejudiced the tenurial rights of the cabin
crew personnel.
Moreover, the
management’s September 4, 1998 offer to transfer PAL shares of stock in the
name of its employees in exchange for the latter’s commitment to suspend all
existing CBAs for 10 years; the closure of its operations when the offer was
rejected; and the resumption of its business after the employees relented; all
indicate that PAL had not acted in earnest in regard to relations with its
employees at the time.
FIFTH
ELEMENT: That the employer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining
who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as
status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship
for certain workers.
In selecting
employees to be dismissed, fair and reasonable criteria must be used, such as
but not limited to: (a) less preferred status (e.g., temporary employee), (b)
efficiency and (c) seniority.[90]
In Villena v. National Labor Relations
Commission,[91] the
Court considered seniority an important aspect for the validity of a
retrenchment program. In Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc. v.
National Labor Union,[92] the
Court held that the implementation of a retrenchment scheme without taking
seniority into account rendered the retrenchment invalid, even as against
factors such as dependability, adaptability, trainability, job performance,
discipline, and attitude towards work.
In the
implementation of its retrenchment scheme, PAL evaluated the cabin crew
personnel’s performance during the year preceding the retrenchment (1997),
based on the following set of criteria or rating
variables found in the Performance Evaluation Form of the cabin crew
personnel’s Grooming and Appearance Handbook:
A. INFLIGHT PROFICIENCY EVALUATION – 30%
B. JOB PERFORMANCE – 35%
·
Special Award – +5
·
Commendations – +2
·
Appreciation – +1
·
Disciplinary Actions – Reminder
(-3), Warning/Admonition & Reprimands (-5), Suspension (-20), Passenger
Complaints (-30), Appearance (-10)
C. ATTENDANCE – 35%
·
Perfect Attendance – +2
·
Missed Assignment – -30
·
Sick Leaves in excess of allotment
and other leaves in excess of allotment
– -20
·
Tardiness – -10 [93]
The
appellate court held that there was no need for PAL to consult with FASAP
regarding standards or criteria that the airline would utilize in the
implementation of the retrenchment program; and that the criteria actually used
which was unilaterally formulated by PAL using its Performance Evaluation Form
in its Grooming and Appearance Handbook was reasonable and fair. Indeed, PAL was not obligated to consult FASAP
regarding the standards it would use in evaluating the performance of the each
cabin crew. However, we do not agree
with the findings of the appellate court that the criteria utilized by PAL in
the actual retrenchment were reasonable and fair.
This Court has repeatedly enjoined employers
to adopt and observe fair and reasonable standards to effect retrenchment. This is of paramount importance because an
employer’s retrenchment program could be easily justified considering the
subjective nature of this requirement. The
adoption and implementation of unfair
and unreasonable criteria could not
easily be detected especially in the retrenchment of large numbers of employees,
and in this aspect, abuse is a very distinct and real possibility. This is where labor tribunals should exercise
more diligence; this aspect is where they should concentrate when placed in a
position of having to judge an employer’s retrenchment program.
Indeed,
the NLRC made a detailed listing of the retrenchment scheme based on the ICCD
Masterank and Seniority 1997 Ratings. It
found the following:
1. Number of
employees retrenched due to inverse seniority rule and other reasons -- 454
2. Number of
employees retrenched due to excess sick leaves -- 299
3. Number of
employees who were retrenched due to excess sick leave and other reasons -- 61
4. Number of
employees who were retrenched due to other
reasons -- 107
5. Number of
employees who were demoted -- 552
Total -- 1,473.[94]
Prominent
from the above data is the retrenchment of cabin crew personnel due to “other reasons” which, however, are not
specifically stated and shown to be for a valid cause. This is not allowed because it has no basis
in fact and in law.
Moreover,
in assessing the overall performance of each cabin crew personnel, PAL only
considered the year 1997. This makes the
evaluation of each cabin attendant’s efficiency rating capricious and
prejudicial to PAL employees covered by it. By discarding the cabin crew personnel’s
previous years of service and taking into consideration only one year’s worth
of job performance for evaluation, PAL virtually did away with the concept of
seniority, loyalty and past efficiency, and treated all cabin attendants as if
they were on equal footing, with no one
more senior than the other.
In sum, PAL’s
retrenchment program is illegal because it was based on wrongful premise (Plan
14, which in reality turned out to be Plan 22, resulting in retrenchment of
more cabin attendants than was necessary) and in a set of criteria or rating
variables that is unfair and unreasonable when implemented. It failed to take into account each cabin
attendant’s respective service record, thereby disregarding seniority and loyalty
in the evaluation of overall employee performance.
Anent the
claim of unfair labor practices committed against petitioner, we find the same
to be without basis. Article 261 of the
Labor Code provides that violations of a CBA, except those which are gross in
character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be
resolved as grievances under the parties’ CBA. Moreover, “gross violations of CBA” under the
same Article referred to flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement,
which is not the issue in the instant case.
Also, we
fail to see any specific instance of union busting, oppression or harassment and
similar acts of FASAP’s officers. The
fact that majority of FASAP’s officers were either retrenched or demoted does
not prove restraint or coercion in their right to organize. Instead, we see a simple retrenchment scheme
gone wrong for failure to abide by the stringent rules prescribed by law, and a
failure to discharge the employer’s burden of proof in such cases.
Quitclaims
executed as a result of PAL’s illegal retrenchment program are likewise annulled
and set aside because they were not voluntarily entered into by the retrenched
employees; their consent was obtained by fraud or mistake, as volition was
clouded by a retrenchment program that was, at its inception, made without
basis. The law looks with disfavor upon
quitclaims and releases by employees pressured into signing by unscrupulous
employers minded to evade legal responsibilities. As a rule, deeds of release or quitclaim
cannot bar employees from demanding benefits to which they are legally entitled
or from contesting the legality of their dismissal. The acceptance of those benefits would not
amount to estoppel. The amounts already received by the retrenched employees as
consideration for signing the quitclaims should, however, be deducted from
their respective monetary awards.[95]
In Trendline Employees Association-Southern
Philippines Federation of Labor v. NLRC,[96] we
held that where the employer led its employees to believe that the employer was
suffering losses and as a result thereof accept retrenchment by executing
quitclaims and waivers, there was evident bad faith on the part of the employer
justifying the setting aside of the quitclaims and waivers executed.
As to
PAL’s recall and rehire process (of retrenched cabin crew employees), the same is
likewise defective. Considering the
illegality of the retrenchment, it follows that the subsequent recall and
rehire process is likewise invalid and without effect.
A
corporate officer is not personally liable for the money claims of discharged
corporate employees unless he acted with evident malice and bad faith in
terminating their employment.[97] We do not see how respondent Patria Chiong may
be held personally liable together with PAL, it appearing that she was merely
acting in accordance with what her duties required under the circumstances. Being an Assistant Vice President for Cabin
Services of PAL, she takes direct orders from superiors, or those who are
charged with the formulation of the policies to be implemented.
With
respect to moral damages, we have time and again held that as a general rule, a
corporation cannot suffer nor be entitled to moral damages. A corporation, being an artificial person and
having existence only in legal contemplation, has no feelings, no emotions, no
senses; therefore, it cannot experience physical suffering and mental
anguish. Mental suffering can be
experienced only by one having a nervous system and it flows from real ills,
sorrows, and griefs of life – all of which cannot be suffered by an artificial,
juridical person.[98] The Labor Arbiter’s award of moral damages was
therefore improper.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 87956 dated August 23, 2006, which affirmed the Decision of
the NLRC setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s findings of illegal retrenchment and
its Resolution of May 29, 2007 denying the motion for reconsideration, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is
rendered:
1. FINDING respondent
Philippine Airlines, Inc. GUILTY of illegal dismissal;
2. ORDERING Philippine Air
Lines, Inc. to reinstate the cabin crew personnel who were covered by the
retrenchment and demotion scheme of June 15, 1998 made effective on July 15,
1998, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to pay them
full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other monetary benefits computed
from the time of their separation up to the time of their actual reinstatement,
provided that with respect to those who had received their respective
separation pay, the amounts of payments shall be deducted from their backwages.
Where reinstatement is no longer
feasible because the positions previously held no longer exist, respondent
Corporation shall pay backwages plus, in lieu of reinstatement, separation pay
equal to one (1) month pay for every year of service;
3. ORDERING Philippine
Airlines, Inc. to pay attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the
total monetary award.
Costs
against respondent PAL.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Designated in lieu of Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes.
[1] Rollo, pp. 59-83; penned by Associate
Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now Associate Justice of this Court) and concurred in
by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Vicente S.E. Veloso.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
Entered into on
In the
event of redundancy, phase-out of equipment or reduction of operations, the
following rules in the reduction of personnel shall apply:
A. Reduction in the number of Pursers:
1. In the event of a reduction of purser OCARs, pursers who
have not attained an efficiency rating of 85% shall be downgraded to
international Cabin Attendant in the reverse order of seniority.
2. If the reduction of purser OCARs would involve more than
the number of pursers who have not attained an efficiency rating of 85%, then
pursers who have attained an efficiency rating of 85% shall be downgraded to
international Cabin Attendant in the inverse order of seniority.
B. In reducing the number of international Cabin Attendants due to reduction
in international Cabin Attendant OCARs, the same process in paragraph A shall
be observed. International Cabin Attendants shall be downgraded to domestic.
C. In the event of reduction of
domestic OCARs thereby necessitating the retrenchment of personnel, the same
process shall be observed.
D. In no case, however, shall a regular Cabin Attendant be separated from the
service in the event of retrenchment until all probationary or contractual
Cabin Attendant in the entire Cabin Attendants Corps, in that order, shall have
been retrenched.
E. Regular
Cabin Attendants whose services are terminated due to reduction in force shall
receive the benefits of the Retirement Plan provided hereunder or such
separation pay as may be required under the Labor Code, whichever is the
greater amount.
F. VOLUNTARY
DOWNGRADING – The Company shall grant the Cabin Attendants the option to revert
back to a lower position provided they agree to be considered the most junior
among the group. This consideration shall be for the sole purpose of
re-upgrading. (Emphasis supplied)
[9]
The evaluation is contained in the 1997
ICCD Masterank and Seniority Listings prepared by PAL, which lists the names of all cabin crew personnel;
their respective seniority numbers
(1-1,733); their respective efficiency
ratings or ranking for the year 1997 only (85% is the passing grade or
rate); whether they are retained, downgraded or retrenched; and the reasons
for their retrenchment, if so. Rollo, pp. 1085-1140.
The said
Masterank and Seniority Listings was belatedly submitted by PAL to the Labor
Arbiter only in March 2000, when it filed its Supplemental Memorandum.
[10]
Rollo, pp. 79-80; Decision of the Third Division of the NLRC.
[11]
[12]
[13]
See Rivera v. Espiritu, 425 Phil. 169
(2002).
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Rollo, pp. 913; Respondents’ Comment to
the FASAP Petition for Certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Philippine Airlines, Incorporated v.
Philippine Airlines Association (PALEA), G.R. No. 142399,
[22] Rollo, pp. 1259-1261.
[23]
438 Phil. 375 (2002). Therein we upheld
a stay of claims against PAL, which runs effective from the date of issuance of
a stay order (under Sec. 6, Rule 4 of the Interim Rules of Procedure On
Corporate Rehabilitation) until the dismissal of the petition for
rehabilitation or termination of rehabilitation proceedings.
[24]
Docketed as FASAP v. Philippine Airlines
& Chiong, NLRC-NCR Case No. 06-05100-98; rollo, p. 87.
[25]
Then the Assistant Vice President for Cabin Services of PAL.
[26] Rollo, p. 487.
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38] Mamsar Enterprises Agro-Industrial
Corporation v. Varley Trading, Inc., G.R. No. 142729, November 29, 2005,
476 SCRA 378, 382; The Insular Life
Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126850, April 28,
2004, 428 SCRA 79, 85-86.
[39] Perez v. Medical City General Hospital,
G.R. No. 150198, March 6, 2006, 484 SCRA 138, 142.
[40] Uichico v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 121434,
[41]
[42] Polymart Paper Industries, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 355 Phil. 592, 602 (1998).
[43] F.F. Marine Corporation v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 152039, April 8, 2005, 455 SCRA 154, 166-167.
[44] Uichico v. National Labor Relations
Commission, supra note 40 at 43.
[45] Casimiro v. Stern Real Estate Inc., G.R.
No. 162233, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 463; Philippine
Carpet Employees Association v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 168719, February 22,
2006, 483 SCRA 128; Ariola v. Philex
Mining Corp., G.R. No. 147756, August 9, 2005, 466 SCRA 152; Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. v. Daguman,
G.R. No. 154368, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 382.
[46] Banana Growers Collective at Puyod Farms v.
National Labor Relations Commission, 342 Phil. 511, 523 (1997).
[47] Polymart Paper Industries, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, supra
note 42.
[48]
G.R. Nos. 75700-01,
[49] Philippine Carpet Employees Association v.
Sto. Tomas, supra note 45 at 145.
[50] Oriental Petroleum and Minerals Corp. v.
Fuentes, G.R. No. 151818, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 106, 116.
[51] Polymart Paper Industries, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, supra
note 42 at 600, 602.
[52]
[53]
[54] F.F. Marine Corporation v. National Labor
Relations Commission, supra note
43 at 171.
[55]
[56]
[57] TPI Philippines Cement Corporation v.
Cajucom
[58] Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. v.
Daguman, supra note 45 at 393.
[59] Uichico v. National Labor Relations
Commission, supra note 40 at 45.
[60] Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. v.
Daguman, supra note 45 at
394-395.
[61] Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing &
Redrying Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 360 Phil. 218,
238 (1998).
[62] Polymart Paper Industries, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, supra
note 42 at 602.
[63]
G.R. No. 100092,
[64]
[65]
[66] 352 Phil. 1098 (1998).
[67]
[68] Rollo, p. 913; Respondents’ Comment to
the FASAP Petition for Certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals.
[69]
[70]
[71]
329 Phil. 511, 523-524 (1996).
[72] Supra note 56.
[73]
[74] Supra note 55.
[75] Rivera v. Espiritu, supra note 13.
[76] Rollo, p. 912.
[77]
[78]
Only seven (7) months after the questioned retrenchment was implemented.
[79] Rollo, p. 1395. Therein, PAL admits that –
During
this time, the Company was slowly but steadily recovering. Its finances were
improving and additional planes were flying. Because of the Company’s steady
recovery, necessity dictated more employees to man and service the additional
planes and flights. Thus, instead of taking in new hires, the Company first
offered employment to employees who were previously retrenched. A recall/rehire
plan was initiated.
[80]
See footnote 21.
[81]
SEC Order of
[82] Becton Dickinson Phils., Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 159969 & 160116, November 15,
2005, 475 SCRA 123, 144.
[83] Rollo, pp. 1403-1404.
[84] Remerco Garments Manufacturing v. Minister
of Labor and Employment, G.R. Nos. L-56176-77,
[85] AHS/Philippines Employees
[86]
G.R. No. 80352,
[87] Philippine Carpet Employees Association v.
Sto. Tomas, supra note 45.
[88]
[89] Saballa v. National Labor Relations
Commission, supra note 71.
[90]
Fernandez, P.V., The Law of Employee Dismissal, pp. 130-131, 1976 Ed.; Asiaworld Publishing House, Inc. v. Ople,
G.R. No. L-56398, July 23, 1987, 152 SCRA 219, 225; Asufrin, Jr. v. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 156658, March 10,
2004, 425 SCRA 270, 275.
[91]
G.R. No. 90664,
[92]
356 Phil. 63, 73 (1998).
[93] Rollo, p. 924.
[94]
Decision of the NLRC; rollo, p. 686.
[95] F.F. Marine Corporation v. National Labor
Relations Commission, supra note 43.
[96]
338 Phil. 681 (1997).
[97] Midas Touch Food Corporation v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 328 Phil. 1033, 1045 (1996).
[98]