THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 201023. June 3, 2013.]
PHILIPPINE JOURNALIST, INC. AND ROLAND P. DE JESUS, petitioners, vs. PLACIDO C. VICENCIO, JR., EUGENIO A. MANLAPAZ, JR., LUCINO C. SALUDES, JR., ERNIE RODRIGUEZ, RICARDO CORPUZ, NESTOR ASIS, JUBEL GAMBONG AND MOHAMMED JHAZEN JILHANI, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 3, 2013,which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 201023 (Philippine Journalist, Inc. and Roland P. de Jesus v. Placido C. Vicencio, Jr., Eugenio A. Manlapaz, Jr., Lucino C. Saludes, Jr., Ernie Rodriguez, Ricardo Corpuz, Nestor Asis, Jubel Gambong and Mohammed Jhazen Jilhani.). — Respondents' ex-parte plea for immediate resolution is NOTED.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the December 1, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 108115.
Petitioner Philippine Journalist, Inc. (PJI) is a corporation engaged in the publication business. Respondents Placido C. Vicencio, Jr., Eugenio Manlapaz, Jr., Lucino C. Saludes, Jr., Ernie Rodriguez, Ricardo Corpuz, Nestor Asis, Jubel Gambong, and Mohammed Jhazen Jilhani (respondents) were all regular employees of PJI. CSTEHI
In 2006, PJI implemented a retrenchment program due to financial losses resulting in the termination of the services of respondents, among other employees of PJI. This prompted the respondents to file separate complaints for illegal dismissal against PJI.
Respondents alleged that, except for Nestor Asis and Jubel Gambong, they were earlier retrenched by PJI sometime in 2000; that the retrenchment in 2000, however, was ultimately declared illegal by this Court in its September 5, 2006 Decision; 2 that PJI tried to dismiss them again in 2006 via the subterfuge of retrenchment and downsizing of force as reasons; and that their dismissal through retrenchment due to financial business losses or to prevent the same was illegal because the reasons were non-existent in view of the failure of PJI to present its financial statements.
In its defense, PJI countered that its retrenchment program resulting in the dismissal of respondents was valid; that it incurred actual losses for eight (8) years from 1998 to 2006 resulting in a capital deficiency amounting to P758,006,500.00 as of December 31, 2004; that it served individual written notices of termination to respondents and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) one (1) month prior to the intended date of the retrenchment as required under Article 283 of the Labor Code; 3 that respondents were paid their separation pay and other monetary benefits under the law; and that all respondents executed individual quitclaims in favor of PJI.
In its Decision, 4 dated June 29, 2007, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaints filed by respondents for lack of merit.
Feeling aggrieved, respondents appealed the LA ruling before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On September 30, 2008, the NLRC rendered its decision finding "the retrenchment measure undertaken by the petitioner as valid since the requirements of the law were complied with, except the separation pays of private respondents Lucino Saludes, Jr., and Placido Vicencio[, Jr.] . . . . The said employees should have received P94,500.00 and P93,600.00 for their eighteen (18) years of service. Thus, they are entitled to an additional amount of P27,201.00 and P35,748.35, respectively." 5 Both not satisfied, PJI and respondents moved for reconsideration but their motions were denied by the NLRC.
Not in conformity, PJI filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. In its Decision, 6 dated December 1, 2011, the CA held that the retrenchment measures undertaken by PJI to prevent itself from incurring more losses was substantiated by the Report of Independent Auditors 7 submitted by PJI. The CA also found that written notices of termination were sent to the DOLE and respondents at the appropriate time. Thus, PJI complied with the requirements laid down under Article 283 of the Labor Code. The CA, however, stated that the separation pay, computed from the year 2001, received by respondents Saludes, Jr. and Vicencio, Jr., equivalent to five (5) years of service, was indeed inadequate. The CA noted that respondents Saludes, Jr. and Vivencio, Jr. were both hired in 1988 and not in 2001 as PJI claimed. The NLRC was, therefore, correct in awarding additional separation pay to respondents Saludes, Jr. and Vicencio, Jr.
PJI moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied in the CA Resolution, 8 dated March 12, 2012.
Hence, the present petition.
PJI argues that the CA erred in sustaining the additional award of separation pay because the matter was neither raised as an issue nor prayed for in respondents' complaint.
The Court, however, finds no reversible error warranting the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
In Prince Transport, Inc. v. Garcia, 9the Court ruled that "the general prayer is broad enough 'to justify extension of a remedy different from or together with the specific remedy sought.' Even without the prayer for a specific remedy, proper relief may be granted by the court if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant. The court shall grant relief warranted by the allegations and the proof even if no such relief is prayed for. The prayer in the complaint for other reliefs equitable and just in the premises justifies the grant of a relief not otherwise specifically prayed for."
In the present case, contrary to PJI's argument, respondent Vicencio, Jr. expressly and specifically prayed for separation pay in his complaint for illegal dismissal. 10 Hence, the additional award of separation pay granted to respondent Vicencio, Jr. was justified. On the other hand, while respondent Saludes, Jr. did not specifically pray for separation pay as a relief in his complaint, 11 he, nevertheless, added a general prayer for other reliefs as might be deemed just and equitable. The said general prayer effectively enabled the NLRC as well as the CA to award the relief of additional separation pay, being supported by the evidence on record. aIHSEc
Significantly, Article 283 of the Labor Code mandates three (3) basic requisites for a valid retrenchment, namely: (a) proof that the retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses or impending losses; (b) service of written notices to the employees and to the DOLE at least one (1) month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; and (c) payment of separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay, or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
At any rate, as aptly observed by the NLRC and rightly sustained by the CA, the payment of separation pay to retrenched employees is one of the essential requisites for a valid retrenchment. Hence, the determination of the appropriate amount of separation pay need not be specifically prayed for as a relief as it is a necessary consequence of retrenchment.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
By:
WILFREDO V. LAPITANDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 68-82. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring.
2.Id. at 205-222. Philippine Journalist, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 532 Phil. 531 (2006).
3.Art. 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 under taking 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.
4.Rollo, pp. 278-291. Penned by Labor Arbiter Elias H. Salinas.
5.Id. at 73-74.
6.Id. at 68-82. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring.
7.Id. at 240-242.
8.Id. at 83-85.
9.G.R. No. 167291, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 312.
10.Rollo, p. 86.
11.Id. at 88.