Case Digest (G.R. No. 201535)
Facts:
NEC System Integrated Construction (NESIC) Phils., Inc. v. Ralph T. Crisologo, G.R. No. 201535, October 05, 2015, the Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner is NESIC System Integrated Construction (Philippines), Inc. (hereafter petitioner or NESIC); respondent is Ralph T. Crisologo (hereafter respondent), formerly a senior managerial employee of petitioner. Respondent was employed by petitioner from May 3, 1993 and rose to several managerial posts, ultimately serving as Executive Senior Manager — Quality Control and Training with a gross monthly salary of P93,596.84 (July 2001 appointment formalized April 16, 2003).
After a change in presidency (July 2003) and the implementation of company-wide cost-cutting and restructuring measures, petitioner recorded a net loss of P25,814,677.00 for calendar year 2003. In March 2004 petitioner notified DOLE of a retrenchment program and, by letter dated March 5, 2004 (received by respondent on March 8, 2004), informed respondent that his employment was to terminate effective April 5, 2004. On March 12, 2004 respondent accepted separation pay and executed a document captioned “Waiver and Quitclaim Separation Pay” acknowledging receipt of P1,002,065.24 and releasing petitioner from any claims arising from his employment; petitioner later adjusted the effective date to April 10, 2004 and promised additional last-pay items.
Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims with the NLRC (originally before the Labor Arbiter). The Labor Arbiter dismissed respondent’s complaint on November 30, 2004, finding retrenchment valid and noting the voluntary execution of the waiver/quitclaim. The NLRC affirmed that decision on November 11, 2008, likewise finding substantial losses and that respondent’s execution of the waiver/quitclaim was voluntary and binding.
Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 108873), which, by its November 18, 2011 Decision, annulled the NLRC decision and declared respondent’s dismissal illegal for lack of fair and reasonable criteria in selecting whom to retrench; the CA ordered backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, other terminal benefits, and attorney’s fees. The CA denied reconsideration in an April 12, 2012 Resolution.
Petitioner sought review by certiorari in the Supreme Court (Rule 45). The Supreme Court resolved to give the petition due...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in giving due course to, and granting, the petition for certiorari despite respondent’s alleged defective verification/certification?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in rejecting the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)?
- Was there grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC in upholding petitioner’s retrenchment?
- Did petitioner comply with the requisites of a valid termination on the grounds of retrenchment and/or redundancy (notice, substantial and imminent losses, necessity, fair and reasonable criteria, separation pay)?
- Was respondent’s execution of the Waiver and Quitclaim Separation Pay a valid and binding bar to his claims?
- Were the CA’s awards of full back...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)