LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ROBERTO P. LAUREL AND POMPEYO B. ADAMOS, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CARMELITA C. CRISOLOGO, NANCY M. POBLETE AND SHIR…
DE LOS SANTOS, J.:
- Resolution issued on September 28, 2005 which denied petitioner’s appeal (pp. 30-39, rollo); and
- Resolution of November 21, 2005 (pp. 41-42, rollo) which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Allegedly, said resolutions were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners claim that private respondents were part-time physicians who worked on daily shifts of four and ½ hours each from Monday to Friday, and three (3) hours to three and a half hours (3.5) on Saturdays each week (p. 46, rollo). Respondent Carmelita Crisologo received a monthly salary of P15,937.15; respondent Nancy Poblete received a monthly salary of P15,067.85; while Shirley Ann Codamon was paid a monthly salary of P15,647.30 (pp. 47-48, rollo).
In the latter part of 2003, petitioner engaged the services of a job contractor to provide medical personnel for its students and employees effective February 1, 2004.
Consequently, on December 18, 2003, respondents received letters from petitioner (pp. 50-52, rollo) that their employment were to be terminated effective January 31, 2004 allegedly due to “redundancy”, and offered to pay a separation pay of “one (1) month salary (proportionate) for every year of service”, cash conversion of vacation/sick leave or 5-day service incentive leaves.
Respondents Crisologo and Poblete filed their complaint before the Labor Arbiter on November 28, 2003, while respondent Codamon filed her complaint on December 9, 2003.
On September 21, 2004, the Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision, the decretal portion of which is hereunder quoted:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby rendered finding respondent Lyceum of the Philippines guilty of illegal dismissal. As such, it is hereby ordered to reinstate complainants, Carmelita C. Crisologo, Nancy Poblete and Shirley Ann Codamon to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages reckoned from January 31, 2004 up to their actual or payroll reinstatement, which as of this date are in the amounts of P135,031.17, P127,779.92 and P135,735.88 respectively. Considering that complainant Codamon had received the amount of P100,109.69, she is only entitled to the payment of the amount of P35,626.19 by way of backwages as of the issuance of this decision.
Respondent Lyceum of the Philippines is further ordered to pay complainants their service incentive leave pay/vacation leave and sick leave pay as follows:
1. Carmelita Crisologo 2. Nancy Poblete 3. Shirley Ann Codamon “Finally, respondent Lyceum of the Philippines is ordered to pay the sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the judgment award as attorney’s fees.
“All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
“SO ORDERED.” (pp. 68-69, rollo)
Not contented with said ruling, petitioners appealed the same to the public respondent, which rendered the questioned decision on September 28, 2005, affirming the judgment of the Labor Arbiter and dismissing petitioners’ appeal.
Alleging there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed in the issuance of said decision, petitioners filed the instant petition.
Petitioners raised the following issues in their petition:
“THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED AND IN FACT GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN SUSTAINING THE LABOR ARBITER’S DECISION CONSIDERING THAT:
“A.
“PETITIONERS PRESENTED MORE THAN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE TERMINATION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ EMPLOYMENTS WAS VALID AND JUSTIFIED;
“B.
“CONTRACTING OUT SERVICES IS A VALID MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE WHICH THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT SHOULD NOT DISTURB, WITH ABSENCE OF ANY BAD FAITH AND MALICE IN ITS IMPLEMENTATION; AND
“C.
“THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES DOES NOT HAVE ANY FACTUAL BASIS.” (p. 12, rollo)
Redundancy, as one of the authorized causes for the termination of employment by the employer, exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirement of the enterprise. A position is redundant where it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors, such as over-hiring of workers, decreased volume of business, dropping of a particular product line previously manufactured by the company or phasing out of a service activity priorly undertaken by the business. Under these conditions, the employer has no legal obligation to keep in its payroll more employees than are necessary for the operation of its business (Asian Alcohol Corp. vs. NLRC, 305 SCRA 418).
However, for the implementation of a redundancy program to be valid, the employer must comply with the following requisites:
- written notice served on both the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment;
- payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher;
- good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and
- fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished (ibid).
The criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant, are preferred status, efficiency and seniority (Panlilio vs. NLRC, 281 SCRA 53).
In the case at bar, the reason for petitioners’ termination of the services of private respondents was their decision to engage the services of an independent contractor to man the school clinic. However, petitioners failed to establish that said decision to contract out the respondents’ functions was intended as a cost-cutting or streamlining device. Thus, the termination of respondents’ services on alleged ground of redundancy violated their security of tenure as regular employees of the institution.
Respondents are considered regular employees because of the length of their employment and the necessity for and desirability of their functions as school physicians. The intermittent issuances of their appointment letters during the period of their employment are of no moment. As correctly found by the public respondent –
“The document submitted by respondents on the comparative data of cost-savings on the continued maintenance of a school clinic vis-à-vis contracting out of the service, fails to show that the respondents would stand to benefit more from the proposed streamlining measure. Indeed, the cost of contracting appears to exceed the cost for the continued employment of regular physicians, thus belying the alleged purpose of the measure.
“More telling is the respondents’ failure to refute the complainants’ documented assertion that the entity introduced as independent contractor to replace the complainants’ functions is not duly registered as an independent contractor, hence presumed to be engaged in labor-only contracting, and not covered by the policy on permissible contracting.
“Having thus failed to justify the complainants’ termination respondents are liable for the reinstatement of the complainants to their previous positions and to pay full backwages reckoned from the time of their dismissal until their actual reinstatement.
“The claims for moral and exemplary damages cannot be sustained, absent a clear showing that respondents were motivated by bad faith, or had acted in a malicious, oppressive or fraudulent manner.
“However, complainants are entitled to attorney’s fees of 10% of the total award, as they have secured the service of counsel to pursue their valid claims.” (pp. 67-68, rollo )
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the NLRC STANDS.
SO ORDERED.
Lampas-Peralta and Dimaranan-Vidal, JJ., concur.