ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA, employees.

The rehiring or re-employment does not negate the

INC. (AG&P) v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS imminence of losses, which prompted Atlantic Gulf to retrench.
COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, ENRIQUE M. GAMBOA,
CLARO M. TUASON and JOHN DIN [1999] IV. DISPOSITIVE
Petition GRANTED.
[Puno, J.]
V. NOTES
I.FACTS
In 1987, Atlantic Gulf, a corporation engaged in general
construction work, reportedly incurred huge operating losses.
To save itself, Atlantic Gulf implemented a redundancy program
wherein 177 employees occupying rank and file, managerial
and staff positions were separated from employment. Among
them were private respondents Gamboa, Tuason and Din, all
members of the AG&P United Rank and File Association (AG&P
URFA), the certified collective bargaining representative for all
rank and file employees of Atlantic Gulf. These employees
received all the benefits due them under the Labor Code. They
also signed releases indicating their conformity with petitioner's
redundancy program. More than a year after, Atlantic Gulf was
charged with unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal by private
respondents.
The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of private
respondents declaring the redundancy program illegal and
ordered their reinstatement and payment of attorney's fees.
Public respondent National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), on appeal, affirmed in toto the decision of the labor
arbiter. Hence, the present petition.
Atlantic contended that the NLRC cannot overturn the decision
of the Supreme Court dated November 29, 1996 in the case of
AG&P United Rank and File Association v. NLRC and AG&P, a
case also involving Atlantic Gulf and other employees (not
herein respondents) affected by the redundancy program. In the
said case, the Court ruled in favor of Atlantic Gulf and held the
dismissal of employees valid. Among the arguments of herein
respondents was that the redundancy program was actually a
union busting scheme of the management, aimed at removing
union officers who staged a strike, as evidenced by the fact that
the company rehired some of its dismissed workers.
II. ISSUE
WON the Atlantic Gulf’s act of rehiring its dismissed workers
negated its claim of substantial losses which justified its
redundancy program- NO
III. RATIONALE
While it is true that the company hired or re-employed some of
the dismissed workers, it has been shown that such action was
made only as company projects became available and that it
was done in pursuance of the company's policy of giving
preference to its former workers in the rehiring of project