Case Digest (G.R. No. 102472-84)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 102472-84)
Facts:
Saballa v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 102472-84, August 22, 1996, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Juan Saballa, Lailani J. Miranda, Nelia I. Ibarrientos, Helen G. Quiambao, Wilberto D. Amparado and Fidel S. Manaog; respondents are the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Camarines Sur III Electric Cooperative, Inc. (private respondent).On April 23, 1988 private respondent’s General Manager issued Memorandum No. 24-88 instituting austerity measures, including a prioritized retrenchment scheme and a suspension of hiring. That same day private respondent filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. V a Notice of Retrenchment covering about thirty employees; the Regional Director, by resolution dated June 6, 1988, authorized termination of those thirty employees pursuant to Memo No. 24-88. On June 20, 1988 private respondent issued Memorandum No. 60-88 placing some fifty-two employees (including petitioners) on a three-month “forced leave without pay,” purportedly as part of the cost-saving measures; DOLE was furnished a copy on June 23, 1988.
When private respondent extended the forced leave past the three months, DOLE on September 21, 1988 advised reinstatement at the end of the three months and questioned the propriety of the extension. Instead of reinstating petitioners, private respondent applied to DOLE for retrenchment of the employees then on forced leave and on October 15, 1988 issued Memorandum No. 95-88 directing management not to accept returning employees. Petitioners filed illegal dismissal complaints on November 4 and December 2, 1988.
The Labor Arbiter (Dominador B. Medroso, Jr.) rendered a decision dated February 9, 1990 declaring the forced leave and subsequent termination illegal and ordering immediate reinstatement with backwages from July 1988 to reinstatement. Private respondent appealed to the NLRC Third Division which, in its Decision promulgated June 28, 1991 (ponente Lourdes C. Javier), modified the arbiter: it credited evidence that private respondent suffered financial reverses and declared the separations valid as retrenchments but held that respondents failed to give the required notices and awarded one month pay as indemnity and priority in rehiring. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which the NLRC denied in a Resolution promulgated September 16, 1991. Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari (seeking review for grave abuse of discretion) with the Supreme Court; the Solicitor General informed the Court he could not sustain the NLRC’s position and sought compliance by the public respondent to file comment; private respondent filed its comment and the parties later filed memoranda.
Issues:
- Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it declared petitioners’ retrenchment valid despite the record and applicable requisites for valid retrenchment?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)