Case Summary (G.R. No. 199469)
Key Dates
- Mejila was initially hired in April 2002, and her regularization took effect on January 1, 2007.
- She received a termination memorandum on October 26, 2007, with her dismissal effective November 26, 2007.
Applicable Law
The case revolves around Article 298 (formerly Article 283) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which recognizes redundancy as a valid ground for termination of employment, conditional upon proper procedural adherence.
Overview of Dismissal
On October 26, 2007, WPI informed Mejila that her position was redundant due to a manpower rationalization program, which involved the outsourcing of clinic operations to another company. Mejila filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting that her termination lacked legal basis and proper procedure.
Labor Arbiter's Ruling
The Labor Arbiter ruled that WPI illegally dismissed Mejila, primarily for failing to notify the appropriate Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) office. The Arbiter emphasized that the outsourcing did not substantiate a valid redundancy claim and ordered WPI to reinstate Mejila with full back wages and damages.
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Reversal
The NLRC overturned the Labor Arbiter's decision, asserting that WPI had sufficiently demonstrated valid redundancy based on its Headcount Optimization Program initiated several months prior to the dismissal. The NLRC concluded that the notice to the Rizal Field Office constituted adequate compliance with due process.
Court of Appeals (CA) Confirmation with Modifications
The CA upheld the NLRC's determination regarding the non-illegality of Mejila’s dismissal; however, it modified aspects of the ruling regarding due process, determining that WPI's notice to DOLE was improperly served and awarding Mejila nominal damages and attorney's fees.
Key Points on Redundancy
Redundancy permits termination when an employee's position is excess to the needs of the enterprise. The employer must provide evidence supporting claims of redundancy. In this case, WPI's decision to outsource was justified on the grounds of cost efficiency and company focus, which was verifiable through presented business projections.
Procedural Due Process Requirements
Article 298 mandates that employers serve a written notice to both the affected employees and DOLE's Regional Office at least one month before termination becomes effective. The Court affirmed the necessity for strict compliance with these procedural rules to ensure the constitutional rights of labor are protected.
Nominal Damages for Procedural Breaches
Failure to comply with necessary procedural obligations allows for the imposition of nominal damages. The Court noted WPI’s procedural shortcomings in notifying DOLE, thus necessitating a nominal dama
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 199469)
Case Background
- The case involves consolidated petitions from Gertrudes D. Mejila and Wrigley Philippines, Inc. (WPI) regarding Mejila's dismissal due to redundancy.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) had ruled that while WPI had grounds for Mejila's dismissal, it failed to observe procedural due process, resulting in an award of nominal damages and attorney's fees to Mejila.
- Mejila was employed as an occupational health practitioner starting in April 2002 and was regularized on January 1, 2007.
- On October 26, 2007, WPI notified Mejila of her termination effective November 26, 2007, due to the abolition of her position as part of a manpower rationalization program.
Employment Termination Details
- WPI provided Mejila with separation pay, cash conversion of unused leaves, an extension of medical insurance, and other benefits contingent upon returning company property.
- The termination was communicated to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Rizal Field Office, which became a point of contention in the case.
- WPI subsequently outsourced the clinic operations to Activeone Health, Inc., as part of a Headcount Optimization Program aimed at cost efficiency.
Legal Proceedings
- Mejila filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against WPI and its officers, leading to a ruling by the Labor Arbiter that her dismissal was illegal due to non-compliance with procedural due process.
- The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, stating