G.R. No. 159969 - Becton Dickinson Phils., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioners Becton Dickinson Philippines, Inc. (“Becton, Phils.”) and Wilfredo Joaquin jointly filed consolidated petitions for review on certiorari challenging:

A Decision dated May 16, 2003 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the NLRC’s earlier decision dismissing their appeal, and
A Resolution dated September 5, 2003 denying their motion for reconsideration.

The petitions arise from NLRC proceedings wherein the appeal from a Labor Arbiter’s decision was dismissed for:

Failure to comply with NLRC Resolution No. 01-02 (Series of 2002) regarding the requisites for the perfection of an appeal (notably, the lack of a certification of non-forum shopping), and
The appeal being “devoid of merit.”

Joaquin filed a separate Motion for Extension of Time on September 29, 2003 for his petition for review (docketed as G.R. No. 159969), and
Becton, Phils. separately filed its petition for review on the same day, subsequently docketed as G.R. No. 160116.

The petitions were later consolidated by the Supreme Court on January 26, 2004 upon petitioners’ motion.

Becton, Phils. is a domestic corporation engaged in the importation, manufacture, and promotion of health care products and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a U.S.-based corporation.
The company had two main divisions in 1989—the Medical Division headed by Jesus Fargas and the Diagnostics Division, which initially lacked a head.

Esmaquel was hired on September 12, 1989 as Director of Sales and Marketing for the Diagnostics Division.
He held various positions, including Business Director and later Director of Sales, with his responsibilities evolving as the company reorganized under the “Go To Market” concept.
His performance was recognized by numerous awards, including the President’s Club Award and a Business Excellence Award, evidencing exemplary work performance.

In November 2000, Becton, Phils. terminated nine employees, including Country Manager Jesus Fargas, following established company guidelines for separation and retirement benefits.
After Fargas’ departure, Esmaquel was considered for higher positions and became a member of the “Self-Managed Team,” a group formed to manage day-to-day operations pending the appointment of a Country Manager.

On July 10, 2001, barely two months after Wilfredo Joaquin’s appointment as Country Manager, Esmaquel received a notice of termination effective August 10, 2001.
The notice cited redundancy due to company restructuring as the ground for termination and stipulated the return of company properties.

Esmaquel protested the termination, arguing that no discussion had taken place regarding a reorganization that would affect his position and that the criteria for redundancy, including retention of the best-performing employee, were violated.
He was offered separation and retirement benefits computed on a different formula than that used for the previously terminated employees.
Reluctantly, Esmaquel signed a Release and Quitclaim under pressure, which he later contested.

Esmaquel filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter on October 24, 2001, alleging illegal dismissal, underpayment of benefits, and damages.
On March 26, 2002, Labor Arbiter Edgardo M. Madriaga declared his dismissal illegal and ordered payment of backwages, separation pay differential, retirement benefit differential, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Despite the Labor Arbiter ruling, the NLRC dismissed the petitioners’ appeal based on their failure to file a proper certification of non-forum shopping, a decision later upheld by the Court of Appeals.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC for dismissing the appeal on the ground that the petitioners failed to file a certification of non-forum shopping as required by NLRC Resolution No. 01-02 (Series of 2002).

Whether the termination of respondent Esmaquel on the ground of redundancy was valid, given that:

The company applied its criteria differentially when terminating top management versus nine lower-ranked employees, and
The decision was arbitrary and violated established guidelines for retaining high-performing employees.

Whether the signing of the Release and Quitclaim by Esmaquel validly barred his subsequent claims for additional separation and retirement benefits.