G.R. No. 214291 - American Power Conversion Corp. vs. Lim

In 1998, respondent Jason Yu Lim was hired by American Power Conversion Corporation (APCC) to serve as the Country Manager of the American Power Conversion Philippine Sales Office, an unregistered liaison office operating for APCC.
Despite the unregistered status of the Philippine Sales Office, respondent was included in the payroll of American Power Conversion (Phils.) Inc. (APCPI), the only SEC‑registered entity at that time.
The office’s function was to provide sales, marketing, and service support to the local distributor and customers, while APCC engaged in designing, developing, manufacturing, and marketing power protection and management solutions.

In 2002, American Power Conversion (Phils.) B.V. (APCP BV) was established in the Philippines and acquired APCPI to continue its local business operations.
In November 2004, respondent was promoted to Regional Manager for APC North ASEAN, handling operations across several Southeast Asian countries and reporting to the Country General Manager, Larry Truong.
An e‑mail announcement highlighted respondent’s steady leadership and his contribution to increasing revenue, contributing to his elevated responsibilities.

In 2005, during their tenure with petitioner George Kong, respondent and another regional manager (David Shao) reportedly discovered irregularities committed by Kong.
The irregularities were reported through internal channels—from a direct report to a superior (Leanne Cunnold) and also to David Plumer, Vice President for Asia Pacific of APC Japan.
Soon after the report, Kong expressed displeasure in several e‑mails, one remarking “thank you for the 7 knives in my back.”

On September 30, 2005, following a meeting between Kong, Alicia Hendy (HR Director), and David Shao, Shao was asked to resign; after his refusal, he was terminated immediately.
Subsequently, on October 17, 2005, Kong informed respondent of a supposed company restructuring declaring his Regional Manager position redundant.
A termination letter was handed to respondent by Maximo del Ponso, Jr., indicating redundancy with the effective date set at November 17, 2005.
It was later revealed that no proper written notice was given to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) as required by law, and respondent’s severance payment did not remedy his claims.

Respondent filed a labor case alleging illegal dismissal, claiming that the redundancy was a contrived measure, motivated by retaliation against his report on Kong’s irregularities.
The Labor Arbiter found in favor of respondent, declaring his dismissal as unlawful and awarding backwages, reinstatement, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on appeal, holding that the organizational restructuring and redundancy claims were supported by evidence such as new staffing patterns and job descriptions.
The Court of Appeals, in a petition for certiorari, reviewed these decisions and re‑instated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling with modifications, particularly concerning reinstatement and monetary awards.
Finally, the Supreme Court (via the Court of Appeals resolving the certiorari petition) denied petitioners’ motions, ultimately ruling on the illegality of the dismissal and the sham nature of the redundancy scheme.

Whether the declaration of the Regional Manager position as redundant was supported by substantial evidence such as a new staffing pattern or feasibility studies, job descriptions, and managerial approvals.
Whether the restructuring was mere pretext to cover up retaliatory motives against the respondent for raising internal concerns.

Whether the petitioners complied with the mandatory requirement under Article 283 of the Labor Code, notably the proper written notice to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
The significance of non‑compliance with the procedural notice requirement on the legality of the dismissal.

Whether the petitioners’ exercise of managerial prerogative in reorganizing the sales operations—resulting in the abolition of regional management positions—was done in good faith or in bad faith to effect an unlawful dismissal.

Whether the Court of Appeals properly exercised its certiorari jurisdiction in re‑examining the factual findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter.
Whether the evidence adduced by petitioners adequately justified the claim of redundancy despite conflicting findings in previous decisions.