7/23/2019 San Miguel v. Del Rosario, G.R. Nos. 168194 & 168603

1/4

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Petitioner vs. CAROLINE C. DEL ROSARRespondent.G.R. Nos. 1681! " 1686#$ De%e&'er 1$, (##)

*+%tsOn April 17, 2000, respondent was employed by petitioner as key account speciaPetitioner informed respondent that her probationary employment will be severe

the close of the business hours of arch 12, 2001. After respondent was refuentry to petitioner!s premises.

"espondent #led a complaint a$ainst petitioner for ille$al dismissal underpayment%non&payment of monetary bene#ts. "espondent alle$ed petitioner fei$ned an e'cess in manpower because after her dismissal, it hired recruits and re&employed two of her batch mates.

On the other hand, petitioner claimed that respondent was a probationary emplowhose services were terminated as a result of the e'cess manpower that could

lon$er be accommodated by the company. "espondent was alle$edly employed temporary reliever of Patrick (enen, an account specialist, who met an accidAnticipatin$ an increase in sales volume, petitioner hired respondent as an accospecialist on a probationary status and was assi$ned at petitioner!s )reater aArea&*ey Accounts )roup +)A&*A) -eer (ales )roup. owever, petitione'pected business $rowth did not materiali/e, hence, it reor$ani/ed the )A&*and created the entrali/ed *ey Accounts )roup. his restructurin$ led to an ine'cess of 3 re$ular employees, who were redeployed to other positions, incluthe one occupied by respondent.

De%isionsLA4 de%-+red respondent + re/-+r e&p-o0ee because her employme'ceeded si' months and holdin$ that she was ille$ally dismissed, as there waauthori/ed cause to terminate her employment. 5t further ruled that petitionfailure to rebut respondent!s claim that it hired additional employees after she dismissed belie the company!s alle$ed redundancy. 5t rendered the dismissacomplainant as ille$al and orderin$ her reinst+te&ent it2 3/-- '+%4+o-id+0 P+0, Servi%e In%entive Le+ve, 1$t2 Mont2 P+0, &or+- +nd e7e&pd+&+es.

On appeal by petitioner to the 6"

NLRC4 &odiedthe decision of A holdin$ that respondent is a re$ular emplowhose termination from employment was valid but ine8ectual for petitioner!s faito comply with the 90&day notice to the employee and the :O;. hus, respond( is hereby ordered to pay complainant sep+r+tion p+0 e9/iv+-ent to 2er o&ont2 p+0 per 0e+r o3 servi%e reckoned from her #rst day of employment award for full backwa$es shall be accordin$ly ad

7/23/2019 San Miguel v. Del Rosario, G.R. Nos. 168194 & 168603

2/4

award for unpaid service incentive leave and 19th month pay shall be redurespectively. Co&p-+in+nt;s ++rd 3or 2o-id+0 p+0 +nd &or+- +nd e7e&pd+&+es is

7/23/2019 San Miguel v. Del Rosario, G.R. Nos. 168194 & 168603

3/4

2. "edundancy, for purposes of the abor ode, e'ists where the services oemployee are in e'cess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual re@uiremof the enterprise. (uccinctly put, a position is redundant where it is superBuous, superBuity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors, sas overhirin$ of workers, decreased volume of business, or droppin$ of a particproduct line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by enterprise. 5n the case at bar, petitioner presented an aCdavit of its (ales anaand a memorandum of the company both to the e8ect that there is a nee

redeploy its re$ular employees and terminate the employment of tempoemployees, in view of an e'cess in manpower. hese documents, however, dosatisfy the re@uirement of substantial evidence that a reasonable mind mi$ht accas ade@uate to support a conclusion.

5n balancin$ the interest between labor and capital, the prudent recoursetermination cases is to safe$uard the pri/ed security of tenure of employees anre@uire employers to present the best evidence obtainable, especially so becausmost cases, the documents or proof needed to resolve the validity of the terminaare in the possession of employers. A contrary rulin$ would encoura$e employer

prevent the re$ulari/ation of an employee by simply invokin$ a fei$nedunsubstantiated redundancy pro$ram.

)rantin$ that petitioner was able to substantiate the validity of its reor$ani/atiorestructurin$, it nevertheless, failed to e8ect a fair and reasonable criteriodismissin$ respondent. he criteria in implementin$ a redundancy are4 +a preferred status, e.$. temporary employee +b eCciency and +c seniority.

5n dismissin$ respondent, petitioner averred that in choosin$ the employee toretained and to be placed in the limited available positions, it had to $ive priorit

the re$ular employees, over petitioner who is only a probationary employee. Dfurther militated a$ainst the alle$ed redundancy advanced by petitioner is tfailure to refute respondent!s assertion that after her dismissal, it hired new recand re&employed two of her batch mates. Other than the lame e'cuse that respondent who has the burden of provin$ the same, it presented no proof to foits denial.

9. A"5; 273. (ecurity of tenure. 5n cases of re$ular employment, the emploshall not terminate the services of an employee e'cept for a

7/23/2019 San Miguel v. Del Rosario, G.R. Nos. 168194 & 168603

4/4

t2e d+te o3 2er e&p-o0&ent on Apri- 1>, (###, s2e is -i4eise entit-edot2er 'enets, i.e., servi%e in%entive -e+ve p+0 +nd 1$t2 &ont2 %o&p/ted 3ro& s/%2 d+te +-so /p to 2er +%t/+- reinst+te&ent.

Respondent is not, 2oever, entit-ed to 2o-id+0 p+0 'e%+/se t2e re%oreve+- t2+t s2e is + &ont2-0 p+id re/-+r e&p-o0ee.Ender (ection 2, "ule-ook 555 of the Omnibus "ules 5mplementin$ the abor ode, employees whouniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of workin$ days ther

shall be presumed to be paid for all the days in the month whether worked or ence, the ourt of Appeals correctly deleted said award.