Title
Supreme Court
PNCC Skyway Corp. vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment
Case
G.R. No. 196110
Decision Date
Feb 6, 2017
PNCC Skyway Corp. terminated employees during operations transfer, failed to comply with Labor Code's 30-day notice requirement; Supreme Court upheld nominal damages for procedural lapse.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 196110)

Factual Background

The Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) was granted a franchise to construct and operate expressways in 1977. In 1998, PNCC established PSC to manage traffic safety, maintenance, and toll collection. A significant development occurred on July 18, 2007, when Citra Metro Manila Tollway Corporation entered an agreement to transfer the operation of the Skyway from PSC to Skyway O & M Corporation (SOMCO), marking an effective operational transition date of December 31, 2007. On December 28, 2007, PSC issued termination letters to its employees shortly before ceasing operations, with the terminations becoming effective January 31, 2008. The termination letters provided for separation pay but were followed by a Notice of Strike from the Union, claiming unfair labor practices and violation of procedural due process.

Procedural History

PSC asserted that the closure and ensuing termination of employees were conducted in good faith and in accordance with management prerogative. The Secretary of Labor, however, ruled that the termination was lawful due to an authorized cause but noted PSC's failure to adhere to the procedural requirements mandated by Article 283 of the Labor Code. The Secretary's decision mandated payment of separation benefits but denied claims for reinstatement and damages. Both PSC and the Union contested the ruling, leading to a petition for certiorari filed by PSC before the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals upheld the Secretary of Labor's decision, stating that while the closure was justified, PSC did not comply with the requisite notice period provided in Article 283 of the Labor Code. The court reiterated that issuing termination notices only three days prior to the closure was insufficient to satisfy the procedural requirements intended to protect employees' rights.

Legal Issues Presented

The main issues addressed in the petition for review were:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Secretary of Labor's determination that PSC failed to meet the notice requirements of Article 283 of the Labor Code.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeals overlooked the validity of payments made to employees for January 2008 as substantial compliance with the notice requirement.
  3. The relevance of prior jurisprudence from the Agabon and Serrano cases in this matter.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling, emphasizing that the focus was not merely on the merits of termination but rather on the procedural obligations under the Labor Code. The Court noted that serving termination notices was a crucial process intended to provide employees with adequate time to prepare for job loss. It held that PSC’s failure to provide the stipulated notice, despite having advanced knowledge of the transfer to SOMCO, constituted a breach of procedural due process.

Nominal Damages for Procedural Violations

While acknowledging the authorized cause for termination, the

...continue reading

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