Republic of the
MIRIAM B. ELLECCION VDA. DE LECCIONES,
- versus -
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NNA PHILIPPINES CO., INC. and MS. KIMI KIMURA,
G.R. No. 184735
September 17, 2009
R E S O L U T I O N
resolve the motion for reconsideration
of our Resolution
case arose on
complaint for illegal dismissal with several money claims against the NNA Philippines Co., Inc. (respondent). The respondent, a research and translation service company with less than ten (10) employees, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NNA Japan Co., Ltd. (NNA Japan).
respondent employed the petitioner on
13th month pay ( P46,084.00); unused leave credits for seven
(7) days ( P8,028.10); year-end tax refund ( P803.24); and
reimbursement of advances made to the company ( P71,197.05). She refused
to accept the check representing her separation pay in the amount of P244,
182.07 (based on her salary and allowances).
On January 16, 2004, Labor Arbiter Aliman D. Mangandog dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, but ordered the respondent to pay the petitioner separation pay computed at one (1) months salary for every year of service. The petitioner appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
a decision promulgated on May 15, 2006,
the NLRC affirmed the petitioners separation from the service; modified the
monetary benefits awarded to her; and affirmed the Arbiters denial of the
petitioners claim for additional compensation as corporate secretary on the
ground that it was an intra-corporate matter. In addition to the separation pay
P244,182.07, the NLRC ordered the petitioner reimbursement of cash
advances made by the petitioner to the company amounting to P248,712.72.
petitioner moved for a partial reconsideration of the NLRC decision, but the NLRC
denied the motion on
its decision of
petitioner moved for reconsideration of the CAs decision, but was denied through
a resolution issued on September 26. 2008.
The petitioner appealed to this Court on
a Resolution dated
On February 17, 2009, the petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Courts ruling, contending that: (1) the dismissal of an employee on the ground of the redundancy based on mere allegation and without supporting evidence is invalid; (2) the assailed decisions run counter to rulings of the Court that failure to appraise the employee of a fair and reasonable criteria is a violation of due process, and; (3) the respondent terminated the employment of the petitioner not for any authorized cause but with evident malice and bad faith.
view of the motion for reconsideration, the Court required the respondent to
file a comment,
which it did on
We deny the motion for reconsideration.
arguments raised by the petitioner are not materially different from those she
presented in the compulsory arbitration and before the CA. Nonetheless, we again
carefully examined the parties submissions, and we are convinced that the
rulings sought to be overturned are supported by substantial evidence and are
not contrary to law and applicable jurisprudence, as we stressed in our Resolution
The separation of the petitioner by reason of redundancy was supported by the evidence on record. She was separated from the service after the respondents reorganization where her position as Administrator was declared redundant. She was served notice within the statutory period of thirty (30) days and so was the DOLE-NCR. The petitioner was assured of all the benefits under the law.
The petitioner imputes bad faith and malice on the respondent in declaring her position as Administrator redundant, but failed to present convincing proof that the respondent abused its prerogative in terminating her employment or that it was motivated by ill-will in doing so. It was a business decision arrived at in the face of financial losses being suffered by the company at the time.
As aptly cited by the CA:
The general rule is that the characterization by an employer of an employees services as no longer necessary or sustainable is an exercise of business judgment on the part of the employer. The wisdom or soundness of such a characterization or decision is not, as a general rule, subject to discretionary review on the part of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA. Such characterization may, however, be rejected if the same is found to be in violation of the law or is arbitrary or malicious.
We find no violations of law in the respondents actions against the petitioner, nor was the respondent arbitrary or influenced by malice in terminating the petitioners employment for redundancy. This ground for termination is a legitimate exercise of management prerogative unless attended to by arbitrariness or by the failure to follow statutory requirements. No arbitrariness or any violations took place in the present case.
On the petitioners claim for overtime pay, the CA correctly took cognizance of the issue, since this was raised by the petitioner in her capacity as an employee, not as a corporate officer. At the same time, we affirm the CAs denial of the claim, as the petitioner was a managerial employee who is not entitled to such pay.
Finally, as the CA did, we find no basis for the petitioners claim for moral damages and attorneys fees.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we
hereby DENY the petitioners motion
for reconsideration for lack of substantial arguments to warrant a
reconsideration of our ruling of
ARTURO D. BRION
ROBERTO A. ABAD
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
additional Member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 691 dated
Acting Chairperson of the Second Division per Special Order No. 690 dated
 Rollo, pp. 87-100.
 NLRC Records, p. 2.
 Rollo, pp. 31-51.
 LABOR CODE, Article 82 and Implementing Rules, Book III, Rule I, Section 2 (C).
 Rollo, p. 30.
 Supra note 2.
Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Franco, G.R. No. 148195,