IMS v. Logarta (G.R. No. 163657; April 18, 2012)
CASE DIGEST: INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES/MARILYN C. PASCUAL, Petitioner, v. ROEL P. LOGARTA, Respondent. IMS v. Logarta (G.R. No. 163657; April 18, 2012).
FACTS: Sometime in 1997, the petitioner recruitment agency, International Management Services (IMS), deployed respondent Roel P. Logarta to work for Petrocon Arabia Limited (Petrocon) in Alkhobar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in connection with general engineering services of Petrocon for the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco).
Saudi Aramco notified Petrocon that due to changes in the general engineering services work forecast for 1998, the man-hours that were formerly allotted to Petrocon is going to be reduced by 40%, and as a consequence, Petrocon was constrained to reduce its personnel that were employed, one of whom was respondent.
Thus, Petrocon gave respondent a written notice informing the latter that due to the lack of project works related to his expertise, he is given a 30-day notice of termination, and that his last day of work with Petrocon will be on July 1, 1998. Petrocon also informed respondent that all due benefits in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment contract will be paid to respondent, including his ticket back to the Philippines.
Upon his return, respondent filed a complaint the NLRC against petitioner, seeking to recover his unearned salaries covering the unexpired portion of his employment on the ground that he was illegally dismissed.
The LA ruled in favor of respondent. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA decision. Upon further appeal to the CA, the latter affirmed the NLRC decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Was there a valid retrenchment?
HELD: When the dismissal is for a just cause, the absence of proper notice should not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal or ineffectual. Instead, the employer should indemnify the employee for violation of his statutory rights.
All Filipino workers, whether employed locally or overseas, enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislations.
As aptly found by the NLRC and justly sustained by the CA, Petrocon exercised its prerogative to retrench its employees in good faith and the considerable reduction of work allotments of Petrocon by Saudi Aramco was sufficient basis for Petrocon to reduce the number of its personnel.
As for the notice requirement, however, contrary to petitioners contention, proper notice to the DOLE within 30 days prior to the intended date of retrenchment is necessary and must be complied with despite the fact that respondent is an overseas Filipino worker. In the present case, although respondent was duly notified of his termination by Petrocon 30 days before its effectivity, no allegation or proof was advanced by petitioner to establish that Petrocon ever sent a notice to the DOLE 30 days before the respondent was terminated. Thus, this requirement of the law was not complied with.Also, petitioners contention that respondent freely consented to his dismissal is unsupported by substantial evidence. Respondents recourse of finding a new employer during the 30-day period prior to the effectivity of his dismissal and eventual return to the Philippines is but logical and reasonable under the circumstances. Faced with the eventuality of his termination from employment, it is understandable for respondent to seize the opportunity to seek for other employment and continue working in Saudi Arabia.
In the case at bar, notwithstanding the fact that respondents termination from his employment was procedurally infirm, having not complied with the notice requirement, nevertheless the same remains to be for a just, valid and authorized cause, i.e., retrenchment as a valid exercise of management prerogative. To stress, despite the employers failure to comply with the one-month notice to the DOLE prior to respondents termination, it is only a procedural infirmity which does not render the retrenchment illegal.
In Agabon v. NLRC, the Court ruled that when the dismissal is for a just cause, the absence of proper notice should not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal or ineffectual. Instead, the employer should indemnify the employee for violation of his statutory rights.
Consequently, it is Article 283 of the Labor Code and not Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 that is controlling. Thus, respondent is entitled to payment of separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay, or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. Considering that respondent was employed by Petrocon for a period of eight (8) months, he is entitled to receive one (1) month pay as separation pay.
FACTS: Sometime in 1997, the petitioner recruitment agency, International Management Services (IMS), deployed respondent Roel P. Logarta to work for Petrocon Arabia Limited (Petrocon) in Alkhobar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in connection with general engineering services of Petrocon for the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco).
Saudi Aramco notified Petrocon that due to changes in the general engineering services work forecast for 1998, the man-hours that were formerly allotted to Petrocon is going to be reduced by 40%, and as a consequence, Petrocon was constrained to reduce its personnel that were employed, one of whom was respondent.
Thus, Petrocon gave respondent a written notice informing the latter that due to the lack of project works related to his expertise, he is given a 30-day notice of termination, and that his last day of work with Petrocon will be on July 1, 1998. Petrocon also informed respondent that all due benefits in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment contract will be paid to respondent, including his ticket back to the Philippines.
Upon his return, respondent filed a complaint the NLRC against petitioner, seeking to recover his unearned salaries covering the unexpired portion of his employment on the ground that he was illegally dismissed.
The LA ruled in favor of respondent. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA decision. Upon further appeal to the CA, the latter affirmed the NLRC decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Was there a valid retrenchment?
HELD: When the dismissal is for a just cause, the absence of proper notice should not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal or ineffectual. Instead, the employer should indemnify the employee for violation of his statutory rights.
All Filipino workers, whether employed locally or overseas, enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislations.
As aptly found by the NLRC and justly sustained by the CA, Petrocon exercised its prerogative to retrench its employees in good faith and the considerable reduction of work allotments of Petrocon by Saudi Aramco was sufficient basis for Petrocon to reduce the number of its personnel.
As for the notice requirement, however, contrary to petitioners contention, proper notice to the DOLE within 30 days prior to the intended date of retrenchment is necessary and must be complied with despite the fact that respondent is an overseas Filipino worker. In the present case, although respondent was duly notified of his termination by Petrocon 30 days before its effectivity, no allegation or proof was advanced by petitioner to establish that Petrocon ever sent a notice to the DOLE 30 days before the respondent was terminated. Thus, this requirement of the law was not complied with.Also, petitioners contention that respondent freely consented to his dismissal is unsupported by substantial evidence. Respondents recourse of finding a new employer during the 30-day period prior to the effectivity of his dismissal and eventual return to the Philippines is but logical and reasonable under the circumstances. Faced with the eventuality of his termination from employment, it is understandable for respondent to seize the opportunity to seek for other employment and continue working in Saudi Arabia.
In the case at bar, notwithstanding the fact that respondents termination from his employment was procedurally infirm, having not complied with the notice requirement, nevertheless the same remains to be for a just, valid and authorized cause, i.e., retrenchment as a valid exercise of management prerogative. To stress, despite the employers failure to comply with the one-month notice to the DOLE prior to respondents termination, it is only a procedural infirmity which does not render the retrenchment illegal.
In Agabon v. NLRC, the Court ruled that when the dismissal is for a just cause, the absence of proper notice should not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal or ineffectual. Instead, the employer should indemnify the employee for violation of his statutory rights.
Consequently, it is Article 283 of the Labor Code and not Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 that is controlling. Thus, respondent is entitled to payment of separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay, or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. Considering that respondent was employed by Petrocon for a period of eight (8) months, he is entitled to receive one (1) month pay as separation pay.
