Intec Cebu, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:

Petitioners are Intec Cebu, Inc. and two of its officers; respondents are a group of rank-and-file production workers employed by Intec since 1997–1998. The workers allege that beginning in 2005–2006 their six-day workweek was unilaterally reduced to between two and four working days, with a memorandum dated 4 January 2006 (submitted to DOLE on 9 January 2006) and a purported extension through June 2006. Respondents discovered that Intec hired approximately 188 contractual or trainee workers to perform tasks they had been doing, and on 17 May 2006 they reported an establishment termination to DOLE and, two days later, filed complaints for illegal (constructive) dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter (presided by Labor Arbiter Jermelina Pasignajen-Ay-Ad) on 17 May 2007 found respondents constructively dismissed, ordered reinstatement in effect by awarding separation pay and backwages, and dismissed other claims for lack of evidence. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), 4th Division, set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision on 14 December 2007, finding that Intec suffered severe financial losses that justified the reduction of working days, and directed payment of separation pay computed at one-half month salary per year of service but denied backwages.

The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 03471, rendered a decision dated 22 April 2009 reversing the NLRC and reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s finding of constructive dismissal for the respondents before the Court. Several respondents were dismissed from the CA proceedings for procedural defects (failure to sign verification/CSNF). Petitioners brought a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals in (among other things) reversing the NLRC, disregarding the NLRC’s factual findings, and improperly evaluating financial statements and other evidence.

In their submissions, petitioners relied on audited financial statements (2001–2006) to establish business losses and asserted that contractual hires were trainees/casuals to meet off-and-on orders; they also argued that some respondents abandoned their employment when they requeste...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper mode of review and did petitioners demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals?
• Were the respondents constructively dismissed by Intec when it implemented the reduced work-day scheme and hired additional workers?
• Did respondents abandon their employment, thereby forfeiting claims for ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)