8/12/2019 June 2012 Jurisprudence

1/4

8/12/2019 June 2012 Jurisprudence

2/4

2. Waterront Cebu C!ty "otel vs. #a.#elan!e $. J!%ene&; G.R. No. 17'21';June 13, 2012

On: 7etrenchent

Held:

The closure of a de!artent or di&ision ofa co!any constitutes retrenchent by, andnot closure of, the co!any itself.

7etrenchent is the terination of

e!loyent initiated by the e!loyerthrough no fault of and without !re*udice tothe e!loyees. "t is resorted to during!eriods of business recession, industrial

de!ression, or seasonal fluctuations orduring lulls occasioned by lac2 of orders,shortage of aterials, con&ersion of the!lant for a new !roduction !rogra or theintroduction of new ethods or oreefficient achinery or of autoation. "t isan act of the e!loyer of disissinge!loyees because of losses in theo!eration of a business, lac2 of wor2, andconsiderable reduction on the &olue of hisbusiness.

"n case of retrenchent, !roof of

financial losses becoes the deteriningfactor in !ro&ing its legitiacy. "nestablishing a unilateral clai of actual or!otential losses, financial stateentsaudited by inde!endent e$ternal auditorsconstitute the noral ethod of !roof of!rofit and loss !erforance of a co!any.The condition of business losses *ustifyingretrenchent is norally shown by auditedfinancial docuents li2e yearly balancesheets and !rofit and loss stateents as

well as annual incoe ta$ returns.

7etrenchent is sub*ect to faithfulco!liance with the substantati&e and!rocedural requireents laid down by lawand *uris!rudence. 3or a &alidretrenchent, the following eleents ustbe !resent:

)8' That retrenchent is reasonablynecessary and li2ely to !re&entbusiness losses which, if alreadyincurred, are not erely de iniis,but substantial, serious, actual and

real, or if only e$!ected, arereasonably iinent as !ercei&edob*ecti&ely and in good faith by thee!loyer#

)/' That the e!loyer ser&ed writtennotice both to the e!loyees and tothe De!artent of +abor andE!loyent at least one onth !riorto the intended date of retrenchent#

)9' That the e!loyer !ays theretrenched e!loyees se!aration!ay equi&alent to one )8' onth !ayor at least onth !ay for e&eryyear of ser&ice, whiche&er is higher#

);' That the e!loyer e$ercises its!rerogati&e to retrench e!loyees ingood faith for the ad&anceent of itsinterest and not to defeat orcircu&ent the e!loyees right tosecurity of tenure# and

)

8/12/2019 June 2012 Jurisprudence

3/4

acce!ted and o!ted not to *oin in thisco!laint. 3ourth, cessation of or

withdrawal fro business o!erations wasbona fide in character and not i!elled bya oti&e to defeat or circu&ent the

tenurial rights of e!loyees. 4s a atter offact, as of this writing, the Club has notresued o!erations. 6either is there ashowing that !etitioner carried out theclosure of the business in bad faith. 6olabor dis!ute e$isted betweenanageent and the e!loyees when thelatter were terinated.

3. 3rd (lert )e*ur!t!es and +ete*t!ve)erv!*es, n*. vs. Nav!a; G.R. No.

200-3; June 13, 2012

On: 7einstateent

4rticle //9 of the +abor Code !ro&idesthat in case there is an order of reinstateent,the e!loyer ust adit the disissede!loyee under the sae ters andconditions, or erely reinstate the e!loyee inthe !ayroll. The order shall be iediatelye$ecutory. Thus, 9rd 4lert cannot esca!eliability by si!ly in&o2ing that 6a&ia did not

re!ort for wor2. The law states that thee!loyer ust still reinstate the e!loyee inthe !ayroll. here reinstateent is no longer&iable as an o!tion, se!aration !ay equi&alentto one )8' onth salary for e&ery year ofser&ice could be awarded as an alternati&e.

1ince the !roceedings below indicate that

9rd4lert failed to adduce additional e&idence toshow that it tried to reinstate 6a&ia, either!hysically or in the !ayroll, we ado!t as correctthe finding that there was no earnest effort toreinstate 6a&ia.

'. $aul!no vs. N/RC; G.R. No. 17-1';June 13, 2012

On: +oss of Trust and Confidence

Held:

The +abor Code recogni%es that ane!loyer, for *ust cause, ay &alidly terinate

the ser&ices of an e!loyee for seriousisconduct or willful disobedience of the lawful

orders of the e!loyer or re!resentati&e inconnection with the e!loyees wor2. 3raud orwillful breach by the e!loyee of the trustre!osed by the e!loyer in the forer, orsi!ly loss of confidence, also *ustifies ane!loyees disissal fro e!loyent.

The +4, the 6+7C and the C4 allac2nowledged that, notwithstanding !etitionersacquittal in the criinal case for qualified theft,res!ondent P+DT had adequately establishedthe basis for the co!anys loss of confidenceas a *ust cause to terinate !etitioner. ThisCourt finds that a!!roach to be correct, since!roof beyond reasonable doubt of ane!loyees isconduct is not required indisissing an e!loyee. 7ather, as o!!osed

to the =!roof beyond reasonable doubt>standard of e&idence required in criinalcases, labor suits require only substantiale&idence to !ro&e the &alidity of the disissal.

illful breach of trust or loss ofconfidence requires that the e!loyee )8'occu!ied a !osition of trust or )/' was routinelycharged with the care of the e!loyers!ro!erty. 4s correctly a!!reciated by the C4,!etitioner was charged with the care andcustody of P+DTs !ro!erty.

To warrant disissal based on loss ofconfidence, there ust be soe basis for theloss of trust or the e!loyer ust ha&ereasonable grounds to belie&e that thee!loyee is res!onsible for isconduct thatrenders the latter unworthy of the trust andconfidence deanded by his or her !osition.

8/12/2019 June 2012 Jurisprudence

4/4

@asing their conclusion on the?eorandu of 4greeent and 1u!!leental4greeent between ?iraar and ?ar3ishings labor union, as well as the Aeneral"nforation 1heets and Co!any Profiles ofthe two co!anies, !etitioners assert that?iraar si!ly too2 o&er the o!erations of ?ar3ishing. "n addition, they assert that theseco!anies are one and the sae entity, gi&enthe coonality of their directors and thesiilarity of their business &enture in tunacanning !lant o!erations.

4t the fore, the question of whether onecor!oration is erely an alter ego of another is!urely one of fact generally beyond the*urisdiction of this Court. "n any case, gi&en

only these bare reiterations, this Court sustainsthe ruling of the +4 as affired by the 6+7Cthat ?iraar and ?ar 3ishing are se!arate anddistinct entities, based on the ar2eddifferences in their stoc2 ownershi!. 4lso, thefact that ?ar 3ishings officers reained assuch in ?iraar does not by itself warrant aconclusion that the two co!anies are one andthe sae. 4s this Court held in 1esbreBo &.Court of 4!!eals, the ere showing that thecor!orations had a coon director sitting inall the boards without ore does not authori%e

disregarding their se!arate *uridical!ersonalities.

6either can the &eil of cor!orate fictionbetween the two co!anies be !ierced by therest of !etitioners subissions, naely, thealleged ta2eo&er by ?iraar of ?ar 3ishingso!erations and the e&ident siilarity of theirbusinesses. 4t this !oint, it bears e!hasi%ingthat since !iercing the &eil of cor!orate fiction isfrowned u!on, those who see2 to !ierce the&eil ust clearly establish that the se!arate

and distinct !ersonalities of the cor!orationsare set u! to *ustify a wrong, !rotect a fraud, or!er!etrate a dece!tion. This, unfortunately,!etitioners ha&e failed to do.

-. $!lbag ndustral #anua*tur!ng, n*.

vs $!lbag Worers4 5n!on 6 /aas atGabay Ng #anggagaang Nagaa!sa;G.R. No. 12'-; June 20, 2012

On: Disissal ithout 5ust Cause

Held:

nder the law, the burden of !ro&ing thatthe terination of e!loyent was for a &alidor authori%ed cause rests on the e!loyer.3ailure to discharge this burden would result inan un*ust or illegal disissal, as a!tly !ointedout by the C4. e find such a failure on the!art of the e!loyer in this case.

"t is ob&ious that the co!any

o&erste!!ed the bounds of its anageent!rerogati&e in the disissal of ?auricio andCaacho. "t lost sight of the !rinci!le thatanageent !rerogati&e ust be e$ercised ingood faith and with due regard to the rights ofthe wor2ers in the s!irit of fairness and with*ustice in ind.