Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
March 8, 1999
To: N. Culili
Thru: S. Dobbin/G. Ebue
From: AVP-HRD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------As you are aware, the current economic crisis has adversely affected our
operations and undermined our earlier plans to put in place major work programs and
activities. Because of this, we have to implement a Rightsizing Program in order to
cut administrative/operating costs and to avoid losses. In line with this program, your
employment with the company shall terminate effective at the close of business hours
on April 08, 1999. However, to give you ample time to look for other employment,
provided you have amply turned over your pending work and settled your
accountabilities, you are no longer required to report to work starting tomorrow. You
will be considered on paid leave until April 08, 1999.
You will likewise be paid separation pay in compliance with legal requirements (see
attached), as well as other benefits accruing to you under the law, and the CBA.
We take this opportunity to thank you for your services and wish you well in your
future endeavors.
(Signed)
Stella J. Garcia
This letter was similar to the memo shown to Culili by the union president
weeks before Culili was dismissed.
o The memo was dated December 7, 1998, and was advising him of
his dismissal effective January 4, 1999 due to the Right-Sizing
Program ETPI was going to implement to cut costs and avoid
losses.
Culili, however, continued to report for work.
ETPI said that because there was no more work for Culili, it was constrained
to serve a final notice of termination to Culili
o Culili ignored this final notice
Culili allege
o neither he nor the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
were formally notified of his termination.
o he only found out about his sometime in March 1999 when Vice
President Virgilio Garcia handed him a copy of the March 8, 1999
letter, after he was barred from entering ETPIs premises by its
armed security personnel when he tried to report for work.
o ETPI had already decided to dismiss him even prior to the March 8,
1999 letter as evidenced by the December 7, 1998 (memo) version
of that letter.
o ETPI had contracted out the services he used to perform to a laboronly contractor
This not only proved that his functions had not become
unnecessary, but which also violated their Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and the Labor Code.
o He was discriminated against when ETPI offered some of his coemployees an additional benefit in the form of motorcycles to
induce them to avail of the Special Retirement Program, while he
was not.
ETPI allege
o Denied singling Culili out for termination.
o 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.
o The second phase intended to simplify and streamline the functions
of the departments and employees of ETPI.
o The abolition of Culilis department - the Service Quality
Department - and the absorption of its functions by the Business
and Consumer Accounts Department were in line with the
programs goals
The Business and Consumer Accounts Department
(retained department) was more economical and versatile
NLRC affirmed LA
CA Ruling - VALID DISMISSAL DUE TO REDUNDANCY
o Culilis position was validly abolished due to redundancy.
o That ETPI had been very candid with its employees in
implementing its Right-Sizing Program, and that it was highly
unlikely that ETPI would effect a company-wide reorganization
simply for the purpose of getting rid of Culili.
o ETPI cannot be held guilty of unfair labor practice as mere
contracting out of services being performed by union members
does not per se amount to unfair labor practice unless it interferes
with the employees right to self-organization.
o ETPIs officers cannot be held liable absent a showing of bad faith
or malice.
o However, ETPI failed to observe the standards of due process as
required by our laws when it failed to properly notify both Culili and
the DOLE of Culilis termination
Culili's argument:
o He was illegally dismissed because there was no valid cause to
terminate his employment.
o That ETPI failed to prove that his position had become redundant
and that ETPI was indeed incurring losses.
o His functions as a Senior Technician could not be considered a
superfluity because his tasks were crucial and critical to ETPIs
business.
o ETPI had already decided to dismiss him even before the second
phase of the Right-Sizing Program was implemented as evidenced
by the December 7, 1998 letter.
that this evidences ETPI's bad faith in dismissing him
o that ETPI is guilty of unfair labor practice because his functions
were sourced out to labor-only contractors and he was
discriminated against when his co-employees were treated
differently when they were each offered an additional motorcycle to
induce them to avail of the Special Retirement Program.
o the individual respondents, Salvador Hizon, Emiliano Jurado,
Virgilio Garcia, and Stella Garcia, as ETPIs officers, should be held
personally liable for the acts of ETPI which were tainted with bad
faith and arbitrariness. Furthermore, Culili insists that he is entitled
to damages because of the sufferings he had to endure and the
malicious manner he was terminated.
Issues:
(1) WON Culili's dismissal was for an authorized cause - YES
(2) WON there was ULP - NO
(3) WON Procedural Due Process was met - NO
(4) WON Corporate officers are personally liable - NO
Held
redundancy
by serving a written notice on the workers and the Department of Labor and
Employment
o at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof.
"Redundancy"
o when the service capability of the workforce is greater than what is
reasonably required to meet the demands of the business
enterprise.
A position becomes redundant when it is rendered superfluous by any
number of factors such as
o over-hiring of workers
o decrease in volume of business
o dropping a particular product line or service activity previously
manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.
B. Application
In the case at bar, ETPI was upfront with its employees about its plan to
implement a Right-Sizing Program.
o Even in the face of initial opposition from and rejection of the said
program by ETEU, ETPI patiently negotiated with the Unions
officers to make them understand ETPIs business dilemma and its
need to reduce its workforce and streamline its organization.
This evidently rules out bad faith on the part of ETPI.
In deciding which positions to retain and which to abolish, ETPI chose on the
basis of efficiency, economy, versatility and flexibility.
o It needed to reduce its workforce to a sustainable level while
maintaining functions necessary to keep it operating.
o The records show that ETPI had sufficiently established not only its
need to reduce its workforce and streamline its organization, but
also the existence of redundancy in the position of a Senior
Technician.
o ETPI explained how it failed to meet its business targets and the
factors that caused this, and how this necessitated it to reduce its
workforce and streamline its organization.
o ETPI also submitted its old and new tables of organization and
sufficiently described how limited the functions of the abolished
position of a Senior Technician were and how it decided on whom
to absorb these functions.
Evidence considered by the Court:
Although Culilis dismissal was for a lawful cause and not an act of unfair
labor practice, ETPI, however, was remiss in its duty to observe procedural
due process in effecting the termination of Culili.
There are two aspects which characterize the concept of due process under
the Labor Code:
o one is substantive whether the termination of employment was
based on the provision of the Labor Code or in accordance with the
prevailing jurisprudence;
o the other is procedural the manner in which the dismissal was
effected.
Section 2(d), Rule I, Book VI of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code
provides:
(d) In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process
shall be substantially observed:
xxxx
For termination of employment as defined in Article 283 of the Labor Code,
the requirement of due process shall be deemed complied with upon service
of a written notice to the
o employee and
B. Application
ETPI does not deny its failure to provide DOLE with a written notice
regarding Culilis termination.
o It, however, insists that it has complied with the requirement to
serve a written notice to Culili as evidenced by his admission of
having received it and forwarding it to his union president.
ETPI, in effecting Culilis termination, simply asked one of its guards to serve
the required written notice on Culili.
o Culili, on one hand, claims in his petition that this was handed to
him by ETPIs vice president, but previously testified before the
Labor Arbiter that this was left on his table.
Regardless of how this notice was served on Culili, ETPI failed to properly
notify Culili about his termination.
o Aside from the manner the written notice was served, a reading of
that notice shows that ETPI failed to properly inform Culili of the
grounds for his termination.
Rule when either substantive or procedural due process not met
o (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 but
the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the
sanction to be imposed upon him should be tempered because the
dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the
employee; and
o (2) if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article
283 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement,
the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process was
initiated by the employer's exercise of his management prerogative.
Hence, since it has been established that Culilis termination was due to an
authorized cause and cannot be considered unfair labor practice on the part
of ETPI, his dismissal is valid.
o However, in view of ETPIs failure to comply with the notice
requirements under the Labor Code, Culili is entitled to nominal
damages in addition to his separation pay
IV. Corporate Officers nor personally liable
As a general rule, a corporate officer cannot be held liable for acts done in
his official capacity because a corporation, by legal fiction, has a personality
separate and distinct from its officers, stockholders, and members.
To pierce this fictional veil, it must be shown that the corporate personality
was used to perpetuate fraud or an illegal act, or to evade an existing
obligation, or to confuse a legitimate issue.
In illegal dismissal cases, corporate officers may be held solidarily liable with
the corporation if the termination was done with malice or bad faith.