Title
Cosico, Jr. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 118432
Decision Date
May 23, 1997
Employee dismissed after position abolished due to low performance; NLRC ruled dismissal valid, upheld by Supreme Court, citing management prerogative and lack of bad faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 108346)

Factual Background

Conrado Cosico, Jr. was employed by Eva Airways Corporation as Assistant Station Manager at the Manila office with a monthly salary of P30,000. He was tasked with overseeing operational performance, including the construction of an office at Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) and ensuring that the airline met passenger load targets. After five months, a performance evaluation revealed an average of only twenty-five passengers per flight, significantly below target, prompting the company to take cost-cutting measures including the abolition of Cosico’s position, which he was informed of via a letter dated September 24, 1992.

Dismissal and Legal Proceedings

Upon learning of his dismissal and the company's offer of separation pay, Cosico rejected the offer and filed a complaint against Eva Air and its officials for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and damages, leading to NLRC NCR Case No. 00-10-05891-92. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Cosico's favor, declaring the dismissal illegal and awarding substantial back wages, damages, and attorney’s fees, totaling P2,497,000.

Appeal to the NLRC

Respondents appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision to the NLRC, posting a surety bond of P270,000, which Cosico contended was inadequate as it did not encompass the entire monetary judgment including damages and attorney’s fees. Despite this, the NLRC accepted the appeal, later issuing a resolution on August 31, 1994, which set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and awarded Cosico only separation benefits and thirteenth month pay.

Grounds for Petition

Cosico filed a petition for certiorari asserting that the NLRC had gravely abused its discretion by allowing the appeal despite the insufficient bond, erroneously setting aside the Labor Arbiter's ruling regarding illegal dismissal, determining that his position was validly abolished, and denying him damages.

Legal Framework on Appeal and Supersedeas Bonds

The ruling discussed Article 223 of the Labor Code, stipulating that appeals involving monetary awards require a sufficient supersedeas bond. The NLRC's rules, particularly Section 6 of Rule VI, clarified that the bond should cover the monetary award excluding moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The Court's stance emphasized the need for a liberal interpretation of these rules, maintaining that substantial justice should take precedence over technicalities.

Management Prerogative in Position Abolition

The Court affirmed that the company retained the right to abolish positions deemed redundant as part of its management prerogative. Evidence supported that the Assistant Station Manager role had become unnecessary, and the decision to eliminate it stemmed from legitimate operational needs rather than discriminatory mot

...continue reading

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