SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242225. November 5, 2018.]
REYNALDO A. OBUT AND MARIO S. ILAGAN, petitioners, vs.TAKATA [PHILS.] CORPORATION, KATSUHIKO TERAMURA, AND MAKOTO MAEGAWA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 November 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242225 (Reynaldo A. Obut and Mario S. Ilagan v. Takata [Phils.] Corporation, Katsuhiko Teramura, and Makoto Maegawa)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the March 22, 2018 Decision 2 and the September 24, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 145654 for failure of petitioners Reynaldo A. Obut and Mario S. Ilagan (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the validity of their dismissal on the ground of redundancy.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondents Takata (Phils.) Corporation, Katsuhiko Teramura, and Makoto Maegawa (respondents) were able to sufficiently show that petitioners were validly dismissed on the ground of redundancy, 4 which is among the authorized causes provided under Article 298 5 (formerly Article 283) of the Labor Code, as amended. 6 Records show that respondents complied with the requisites for a valid redundancy program, namely, the required notices to the Department of Labor and Employment and the affected workers, and an offer to pay petitioners their respective separation pay. 7 Moreover, since it was not disputed that the Facilities Section of the Utilities and Facilities Department was already outsourced to sub-contractors and found to be more economical and efficient, the management cannot be said to have acted in bad faith when it decided to implement the same scheme in its Utilities Section, which was correctly held by the CA to be a fair and reasonable criteria. 8 It is noteworthy to point out that the declaration of redundant positions is a management prerogative. 9 The determination that the employee's services are no longer necessary or sustainable and therefore properly terminable, is an exercise of business judgment by the employer and the wisdom or soundness of this judgment is not subject to discretionary review, unless shown to be arbitrary, 10 which petitioners failed to discharge. Perforce, the denial of petitioners' claims for damages and attorney's fees must be sustained for lack of basis. It bears stressing that factual findings of the labor tribunals, when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded not only respect, but even finality, and thus binding upon this Court, 11 as in this case. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on official leave.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-21.
2.Id. at 25-35. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan with Associate Justices Socorro B. Inting and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring.
3.Id. at 37-38. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring.
4. See id. at 30-31.
5. Article 298. [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.
6. Department Advisory No. 1, Series of 2015, entitled "RENUMBERING OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS AMENDED" dated July 21, 2015.
7. See rollo, pp. 31-32.
8. See id. at 32-33.
9. See American Power Conversion Corporation v. Lim, G.R. No. 214291, January 11, 2018.
10.San Miguel Corporation v. Del Rosario, 513 Phil. 740, 753-754 (2005).
11. See Nahas v. Olarte, 734 Phil. 569, 580 (2014). See also Unsigned Resolution in Caboboy v. Tacloban Gleen Marketing, Inc., G.R. Nos. 231520-21, January 8, 2018.