REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
3rd Division
Manila

JUJU DEPARTMENT STORE,

Petitioner

vs. CA-G.R. SP NO.

______
Petition for Certiorari
(Rule 65)
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and PRECIOSO
A. SAN JUAN @ OJO
Respondents

x--------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

COMES NOW, petitioner Juju Department Store (JDS)

duly represented by Atty. Bea Bianca G. Dador through the
undersigned counsel in the above entitled case, unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully states and alleges:

I. NATURE OF PETITION

This is a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Resolution of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC for brevity) First
Division dated March 4, 2017 (Certified True Copy of which is
attached and referred as Annex A hereof) which denied
Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner.

II. PARTIES

1. JDS is a duly-incorporated domestic corporation engaged in

retail business which started its operations in 1991 in Sta.
Cruz, Manila;

2. Private respondent, Precioso A. San Juan (San Juan for

brevity) was employed by herein petitioner on December 15,

1
 2003 as its operations supervisor and promoted as
operations assistant manager on September 11, 2007;

III. ARGUMENTS

1. After twenty-five (25) years in the business, JDS decided to

close down on February 14, 2016 its business operation on
account of serious business losses which occurred in 2014-
2015 totaling around P11,000,000.00;

2. JDS, consequently filed on May 6, 2016, a written notice

with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to let
the latter know of its intent to close and terminate its
employees effective June 6, 2016, and it posted the notice of
closure on the corporate bulletin board;

3. Private respondent, San Juan filed a complaint for illegal

dismissal with separation pay, incentive leave pay, 13 th
month pay, holiday pay, vacation leave and sick leave
credits and 10% attorney fees in the sum of P30,000.00
before the Labor Arbiter on November 10, 2016, Certified
True Copy of which is herein attached as Annex B;

4. Private Respondent, in his complaint, alleged that:

a. He was illegally dismissed because he was not given

prior notice of his actual dismissal, as prescribed by
law, there being no written notice sent to him at least
one (1) month before the intended date of dismissal;

b. He approached the Human Resource (HR) Manager

upon seeing the notice of closure in the corporation
bulletin board to verify his dismissal, but the HR
Manager merely told him that he had no choice but
to comply because the petitioner company suffered
huge financial losses;

c. He was not allowed to enter the premises of the

company on June 6, 2016, the date of effectivity of
his dismissal as stated in the notice posted in the
corporation bulletin board despite his willingness to
work for that day;

d. He tried to enter the premises to report for work on

another dates, but he was still not allowed to enter
and the security guard of the petitioner told him that

2
 it was pursuant to the instructions of the
management; and

e. Pursuant to the illegal dismissal of the petitioner, the

private respondent had no means to provide for the
sustenance of his family.

5. The Labor Arbiter, by Decision of December 9, 2016,

Certified True Copy of which is herein attached as Annex C,
declared invalid JDS closure of business and ordered the
latter to pay the abovementioned claims of San Juan. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered

ordering Respondent to pay complainants
separation pay, incentive leave pay, pro-rata
13th month pay, and vacation leave and sick leave
credits in the following computed amounts:
xxxx

Respondent is further ordered to pay complainants

their tax refund for 2012 and to pay 10%
attorneys fees based on the total withheld labor
standard benefits.

SO ORDERED.

6. On appeal, the NLRC upheld the decision of the Labor Arbiter

decision, Certified True Copy of which is herein attached as
Annex D on February 5, 2017. The dispositive portion of
the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby affirmed,

the petitioner having been illegally dismissed by
the respondent, the respondent is ordered to pay
complainants separation pay, incentive leave pay,
pro-rata 13th month pay, and vacation leave and
sick leave credits in the following computed
amounts:
xxxx

Respondent is further ordered to pay complainants

their tax refund for 2012 and to pay 10%
attorneys fees based on the total withheld labor
standard benefits.

3
 SO ORDERED.

7. JDS received a copy of the NLRC decision on February 7,

2017 and filed its motion for reconsideration on February 20,
2017;

8. That the Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the NLRC

in its Resolution dated March 4, 2017, Certified True Copy of
which is herein attached as Annex A. The dispositive
portion of the Resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, finding no merit on the Motion

for Reconsideration and is hereby denied.

SO ORDERED.

9. That MR. JUJU A. MANALO, President of the petitioner

company is filing this present petition, as authorized by a
Secretary Certificate issued in his favor, which authorize him
to file herein petition on behalf of the petitioner, Original
copy of which is herein attached as Annex E; and

10. That the Denial of the Motion for Reconsideration was

received by the petitioner only on March 15, 2017;

11. That with facts foregoing, the petition is therefore

filed within the
sixty (60) day period as provided in section 4, Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court from the date of denial.

IV. GROUNDS

The petition alleges the following errors committed by

herein public respondent NLRC:

1. The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when
it affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter that
the private respondent was illegal dismissed
because of the failure of JDS to send a written
notice to the former; and

2. The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when
it affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter that
the private respondent was illegally dismissed

4
 and ordered the payment of money claims of
the private respondent

12. JDS submits that while it is true that pursuant to Article

283 of the Labor Code, it is incumbent for the employers to
send a written notice on the workers one (1) month before
the termination of the latter, JDS was still able to do a
substantial compliance therefor;

13. In the case of DAP Corporation v. Court of Appeals 1, the

Supreme Court explained the purpose of the written notice,
viz:

xxx The purpose of the written notice is to inform

the employees of the specific date of termination
or closure of business operations, and must be
served upon them at least one month before the
date of effectivity to give them sufficient time to
make the necessary arrangements.
JDS was able to attain this purpose in posting the notice
of closure of its business and termination of all
employees on the corporate bulletin boards because (1)
the latter was able to see the notice one month before
the date of effectivity; (2) the notice and several copies
thereof were posted on all of the corporate bulletin
boards of the business premises, most of them located
at the ingress and egress; (3) JDS ordered all of the
heads, supervisors and managers of each department
to accompany all of their subordinates to one of the
boards for them to see the post and thereafter, make
the subordinates individually sign a Compliance Form
proving that the they have seen and fully understand
the posted notice; and (4) there is a proof showing that
one of the employees who signed the Compliance
Form is the private respondent. The Compliance
Form is hereto attached as "Annex F.

14. During the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and

NLRC, JDS was also able to present DARWINA SAN JUAN-UY
(Uy for brevity), the general manager of JDS and sister of the
private respondent, and KERWYN B. GARCIA (Garcia for

1 G.R. No. 165811, December 14, 2005

5
 brevity), also an assistant operations manager, who testified
the private respondent indeed, had seen the notice;

15. That to buttress her point, Uy explained that on several

occasions, the private respondent asked the former to clarify
on some matters pertaining to the notice and even asked her
to send a photograph of the notice via Facebook Messenger.
The photograph of the notice and the screenshots of the
Facebook Messenger conversation are hereto attached as
Annexes G
and H;

16. That in the spirit of justice, such substantial

compliance should be considered;

17. Furthermore, JDS submits that the San Juan was validly
terminated because as provided in the case of Sangwoo
Philippines, Inc. v. Sangwoo Philippines, Inc. Employees
Union-Olalia2, closure of business due to serious business
losses is a valid ground for termination of employment and
non-payment of separation pay;
18. In the case of Cama v. Jonis Food Services, Inc 3, the
Supreme Court declared:

The Constitution, while affording full protection to

labor, nonetheless, recognizes the right of
enterprises to reasonable returns on investments,
and to expansion and growth. In line with this
protection afforded to business by the
fundamental law, Article 283 of the Labor Code
clearly makes a policy distinction. It is only in
instances 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 that
employees whose employment has been
terminated as a result are entitled to separation
pay. In other words, Article 283 of the Labor
Code does not obligate an employer to pay
separation benefits when the closure is due
to serious losses. To require an employer to
2 G.R. No. 173154 and G.R. No. 173229, December 9, 2013

3 469 Phil. 223 (2004)

6
 be generous when it is no longer in a
position to do so, in our view, would be
unduly oppressive, unjust, and unfair to the
employer. Ours is a system of laws, and the
law in protecting the rights of the working
man, authorizes neither the oppression nor
the self-destruction of the employer. x x x
(Emphasis supplied)

V. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is

respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court to
reverse the decision of NLRC and its Resolution, to
declare that the private respondent was validly
dismissed and properly notified of such dismissal.

Such other relief and remedies deemed just

and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Manila City, Philippines, May 2, 2017

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-
FORUM SHOPPING

I, JUJU A. MANALO, of legal age, after having been duly

sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the President of the petitioner in the above-

entitled case;

2. I caused the preparation and filing of the

foregoing petition, the contents/factual allegations of
which are true and correct based on my own personal
knowledge and authentic records; and

3. No other action or proceeding involving the same

issues raised in the counterclaims above has been
commenced and/or pending with the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals or any Division thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency, and that to be best of my
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in
the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. If I should
learn that a similar action of proceeding has been filed

7
 or is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency, I shall notify or cause to notify this Honorable
Court with five (5) days from such notice.

JUJU A. MANALO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2nd day

of May 2017 in the City of Manila, Metro Manila, affiant
exhibiting to me his competent evidence of his identity in
the form of his Philippine Passport No. EB8809 issued on 11
February 2016, issued at Pasay City.

BEA BIANCA G. DADOR

PTR No. 53718926; 01-12-
2015; Manila City
IBP No. 1512282; 01-20-15;
Manila Chapter
Roll of Attorneys No. 11487
MCLE Compliance
Certificate No.
V-0033247; 10-20-
2016

Doc. No. ____;

Book No. ____;
Page No. ____;
Series of 2017.