Title
Supreme Court
Becton Dickinson Phils., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 159969
Decision Date
Nov 15, 2005
A former executive challenged his termination for redundancy, claiming unfair treatment and invalid quitclaim. Courts ruled his dismissal illegal, citing procedural noncompliance and lack of redundancy proof.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 159969)

Overview of the Case

This case involves consolidated petitions from Becton Dickinson Philippines, Inc. (Becton, Phils.) and Wilfredo Joaquin, seeking to reverse decisions from lower tribunals regarding the dismissal of Reinerio Z. Esmaquel, the respondent. The petitions specifically opposed the affirmation by the Court of Appeals (CA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) regarding Esmaquel's illegal dismissal.

Background Information

Becton, Phils. is a subsidiary of Becton Dickinson Worldwide, Inc., engaged in healthcare product operations in the Philippines. Esmaquel was employed with the firm and held various managerial roles until he was terminated on August 10, 2001, under the pretext of redundancy post a management restructuring that occurred shortly after Joaquin was appointed as Country Manager.

Labor Arbiter's Findings

The Labor Arbiter declared Esmaquel's dismissal illegal, citing the lack of justifiable reasons for the redundancy claim. Key points of the Arbiter's decision included findings that Esmaquel was a high-performing employee and that dismissing him primarily to reduce costs violated established company guidelines that categorized terminations by performance rather than salary alone. The Arbiter ordered Becton, Phils. to pay substantial amounts in back wages, separation pay differential, retirement benefits, and damages.

Appeals Process

The petitioners appealed the decision to the NLRC, which dismissed the case for procedural non-compliance—specifically, failing to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping. The NLRC's decision was affirmed by the CA, leading to the current petitions filed before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Raised

Two main issues were presented in the petitions:

  1. Procedural Issue: Whether the CA erred in not recognizing a grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC for dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds due to the lack of certification of non-forum shopping.
  2. Substantive Issue: Whether the CA erred in not recognizing grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC when it affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, not addressing the merits of the case adequately.

Supreme Court's Ruling on Procedural Grounds

The Court upheld the NLRC's procedural ruling, underscoring that compliance with the requirements for lodging an appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional under the NLRC's rules. The failure to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping within the prescribed period was deemed fatal to the petitioners’ cause, affirming the lapse as a significant breach that rendered the Labor Arbiter's decision final and executory.

Supreme Court's Ruling on Substantive Grounds

Substantively, the Court affirmed the lower decisions concerning Esmaquel's dismissal, reiterating that Becton, Phils. did not sufficiently demonstrate that the redundancy was justified as per the legal definition. The ruling emphasized the impor

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.