THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 195541. September 11, 2013.]
ALFREDO MOLOS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. LIWAYWAY PUBLISHING, INC., RENE ESPINA AND DON EMILIO YAP, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 11, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 195541 (Alfredo Molos, et al. v. Liwayway Publishing, Inc., Rene Espina and Don Emilio Yap). — Liwayway Publishing Employees Council-PTGWO (the union) has been the exclusive bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees of respondent Liwayway Publishing, Inc. (the company). When Alfredo Molos was the union president, he had occasions to file at least three cases against the company before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
On June 24, 2003 the union submitted its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) proposal to the company to cover the years 2003 to 2008. But the latter did not respond, prompting the union to write it on July 10 and 28, 2003 to follow up on the proposal. Rather than reply, the company retired 16 employees, including three union officers, on ground of business reverses. Subsequently, the company abolished its Motor Pool Department, effectively terminating 13 employees, again including union officers, one of which was Molos. TEcAHI
On August 1, 2003 the union filed a notice of strike against the company for union busting and refusal to bargain. Since the company had been engaged in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary certified the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
Despite reasonable efforts, the parties failed to settle their dispute amicably. On June 29, 2004 the NLRC rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal considering proof that the company had indeed suffered severe business reverses. On May 14, 2010 the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC decision, hence, the present petition before this Court.
The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred in upholding the NLRC's finding that the company was not guilty of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal.
Under Article 276 (c) of the Labor Code, there is union busting when the employer threatens the union's existence by dismissing its elected officers. Unfair labor practice, on the other hand, 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. 1 CSTDIE
Here, on the surface, the company appears to have terminated its employees because the union, led by Molos, proved difficult to bargain with, aggravated by the fact that he had previously filed several cases against the company. But, as both the NLRC and the CA found, the company had been genuinely suffering from business reverses. Indeed, its income could no longer support the entire work force. Consequently, pursuant to their CBA provision on compulsory retirement, the company deemed it necessary to retire some of its employees and abolish its Motor Pool Department.
One of the authorized causes for termination under Article 297 2 of the Labor Code, which can be resorted to by an ailing company is retrenchment. Retrenchment or "lay-off" in layman's term is the termination of employment through no fault of the employees, forced upon the company by losses in its operations, lack of work, and considerable reduction in the volume of its business. It is a management prerogative, a means to protect and preserve the employer's viability and ensure his survival. 3
The rule is that the party who alleges unfair labor practice must prove it with substantial evidence since such offense is punishable by civil or criminal sanction or both. 4 The union failed, however, to present sufficient proof that the company intentionally dismissed the union officers and others from service without any valid and justifiable reason, or as a means of retaliation.
Retrenchment is valid when: (a) it is necessary to prevent losses that are proven; (b) the employer gives written notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least a month earlier; and (c) the retrenched employees are paid the equivalent of one month or half month's pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. Here, the company presented its audited financial statements from 1999 to 2002 to prove that it had lost income opportunity amounting to over P12 million. It gave the affected employees a month's notice of termination with separation pay. The union never refuted these claims.
The rule is that the determination of whether or not an employer has sufficiently and successfully established the existence of legitimate business reasons to justify retrenchment is essentially a question of fact for the labor tribunals to determine. 5 The Court yields to such determination. ECTIHa
Lastly, on October 15, 2003 the remaining employees elected new union officers, who on May 5, 2004 entered into a new CBA with the company, ratified by 93% or 124 out of its 133 union members.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMSthe Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 88169 dated May 14, 2010.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon, G.R. No. 175002, February 18, 2013.
2.Renumbered pursuant to Republic Act 10151.
3.Polymart Paper Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 355 Phil. 592, 595 (1998).
4.Bankard, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 171664, March 6, 2013.
5.Supra note 3, at 603.