Case Digest (G.R. No. 148372)
Facts:
Clarion Printing House, Inc., and Eulogio Yutingco v. The Honorable National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division) and Michelle Miclat, G.R. No. 148372, June 27, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio‑Morales, J., writing for the Court.Michelle Miclat (respondent) was hired by Clarion Printing House, Inc. (CLARION) on April 21, 1997 as a probationary marketing assistant at a monthly salary of P6,500; she alleges she was not informed of the standards that would qualify her as a regular employee. On September 16, 1997 the EYCO Group of Companies (of which CLARION was a member) filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for declaration of suspension of payments and appointment of a rehabilitation receiver/committee; the petition described cash‑flow problems, external adverse factors, and contemplated suspension of obligations during rehabilitation. On September 19 and September 30, 1997, the SEC issued orders setting a hearing, enjoining disposals and payments outside the ordinary course and approving the creation of an interim receiver for the group.
On October 10, 1997 the EYCO group circulated a memorandum announcing the interim receiver's entry; on October 22, 1997 CLARION’s Assistant Personnel Manager notified Miclat by telephone that her employment would be terminated effective October 23, 1997, and on reporting the next day she was told her termination was part of cost‑cutting measures. Miclat filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter on November 17, 1997. A January 7, 1998 company memorandum contemplated a temporary partial shutdown consistent with Article 286 of the Labor Code.
Before the labor arbiter Miclat argued she had not been made aware of probationary standards, claimed lack of due process and sought backwages, separation pay and other benefits; CLARION defended on the ground of retrenchment due to business reverses, pointing to the receivership and balance sheets. On November 23, 1998 the labor arbiter found illegal dismissal and ordered reinstatement with backwages and monetary awards. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), by Resolution of June 17, 1999, affirmed the arbiter, holding petitioners had not proven the requisites for valid retrenchment (substantial and imminent losses, requisite notices, and payment of separation pay). Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which on November 24, 2000 denied relief and sustained the NLRC, again finding failure to prove retrenchment and also observing that Miclat became a regular employee upon expiration of the probationary period because no standards were made known. The CA denied reconsideration by resolution dated May 23, 2001. Petitioners then filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme C...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May an employer introduce evidence for the first time on appeal to the NLRC in a labor case?
- Was Miclat’s dismissal valid as a retrenchment to prevent losses?
- Did Miclat become a regular employee by operation of law because no probationary standards were made known at hiring?
- Did the SEC receivership/appointment of a management receiver and subsequent liquidation affect the proper forum or timing for adjudicating Miclat’s ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)