Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83628:57672&catid=1586&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:21:55+00:00

Document:
CRISPIN B. LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. IRVINE CONSTRUCTION CORP. AND TOMAS SY SANTOS, Respondents.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 are the Decision2 dated September 14, 2012 and the Resolution3 dated April 12, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. SP No. 108385-MIN which annulled and set aside the Resolutions dated October 31, 20084 and February 12, 20095 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 01-000428-2008, and thereby dismissed petitioner Crispin B. Lopez's (Lopez) complaint for illegal dismissal.
Respondent Irvine Construction Corp. (Irvine) is a construction firm with office address at San Juan, Manila.6 It initially hired Lopez as laborer in November 1994 and, thereafter, designated him as a guard at its warehouse in Dasmarifias, Cavite in the year 2000, with a salary of P238.00 per day and working hours from 7 o'clock in the morning until 4 o'clock in the afternoon, without any rest day.7 On December 18, 2005, Lopez was purportedly terminated from his employment, whereupon he was told "Ikaw ay lay-off muna."8 Thus, on January 10, 2006, he filed a complaint9 for illegal dismissal with prayer for the payment of separation benefits against Irvine before the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV in San Pablo City, Laguna, docketed as NLRC Case No. SRAB-IV 1-8693-06-Q.
On December 6, 2007, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision15 ruling that Lopez was illegally dismissed.
At odds with the LA's ruling, Irvine elevated the matter on appeal18 to the NLRC.
On October 31, 2008, the NLRC rendered a Resolution19 upholding the LA's ruling.
Dissatisfied, Irvine filed a motion for reconsideration22 which was, however, denied in a Resolution23 dated February 12, 2009; hence, it filed a petition for certiorari24 before the CA.
The CA granted Irvine's certiorari petition m a Decision25 dated September 14, 2012, thereby reversing the NLRC.
Aggrieved, Lopez sought reconsideration28 but the same was denied in a Resolution29 dated April 12, 2013, hence, this petition.
The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in finding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the LA's ruling that Lopez was illegally dismissed.
Ruling on the propriety of Irvine's course of action in this case preliminarily calls for a determination of Lopez's employment status that is, whether Lopez was a project or a regular employee.
In the case at bar, Irvine asserts that it only temporarily laid-off Lopez from work on December 27, 2005 for the reason that its project in Cavite had already been finished. To support its claim, it submitted the following pieces of evidence: (a) a copy of an Establishment Termination Report44 evidencing Lopez's lay-off; (b) a copy of the return to work order dated June 5, 2006;45 and (c) an affidavit46 from Irvine's personnel manager, Aguinaldo Santos, which purports that said return to work order was sent to Lopez by ordinary mail on June 5, 2006. The CA gave credence to the foregoing and thus granted Irvine's certiorari petition against the NLRC ruling which affirmed the LA's finding of illegal dismissal.
As the NLRC correctly ruled in this case, Lopez, who, as earlier discussed was a regular employee of Irvine, was not merely temporarily laid off from work but was terminated from his employment without any valid cause therefor; thus, the proper disposition is to affirm the LA's ruling that Lopez had been illegally dismissed.
Considering the severe consequences occasioned by retrenchment on the livelihood of the employee(s) to be dismissed, and the avowed policy of the State - under Sec. 3, Art. XIII of the Constitution, and Art. 3 of the Labor Code - to afford full protection to labor and to assure the employee's right to enjoy security of tenure, the Court reiterates that "not every loss incurred or expected to be incurred by a company will justify retrenchment. The losses must be substantial and the retrenchment must be reasonably necessary to avert such losses. Settled is the rule that the employer bears the burden of proving this allegation of the existence or imminence of substantial losses, which by its nature is an affirmative defense. It is the duty of the employer to prove with Clear and satisfactory evidence that legitimate business reasons exist to justify retrenchment. Failure to do so "inevitably results in a finding that the dismissal is. unjustified." And the determination of whether an employer has sufficiently and successfully discharged this burden of proof "is essentially a question of fact for the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to determine."
In this case, Irvine failed to prove compliance with the parameters of Article 286 of the Labor Code. As the records would show, it merely completed one of its numerous construction projects which does not, by and of itself, amount to a bona fide suspension of business operations or undertaking. In invoking Article 286 of the Labor Code, the paramount consideration should be the dire exigency of the business of the employer that compels it to put some of its employees temporarily out of work.51 This means that the employer should be able to prove that it is faced with a clear and compelling economic reason which reasonably forces it to temporarily shut down its business operations or a particular undertaking, incidentally resulting to the temporary lay-off of its employees.
[Article 286 of the Labor Code] has been applied by analogy to security guards in a security agency who are placed "off detail" or on "floating" status. In security agency parlance, to be placed "off detail" or on "floating" status means "waiting to be posted." Pursuant to Article 286 of the Labor Code, to be put off detail or in floating status requires no less than the dire exigency of the employer's bona fide suspension of operation, business or undertaking. In security services, this happens when there is a surplus of security guards over available assignments as when the clients that do not renew their contracts with the security agency are more than those clients that do and the new ones that the agency gets.
The same can be said of the employee in this case as no evidence was submitted by Irvine to show any dire exigency which rendered it incapable of assigning Lopez to any of its projects. Add to this the fact that Irvine did not proffer any sufficient justification for singling out Lopez for lay-off among its other three hundred employees, thereby casting a cloud of doubt on Irvine's good faith in pursuing this course of action. Verily, Irvine cannot conveniently suspend the work of any of its employees in the guise of a temporary lay-off when it has not shown compliance with the legal parameters under Article 286 of the Labor Code. With Irvine failing to prove such compliance, the resulting legal conclusion is that Lopez had been constructively dismissed; and since the same was effected without any valid cause and due process, the NLRC properly affirmed the LA's ruling that Lopez's dismissal was illegal.
In light of the foregoing, the CA therefore erred in granting Irvine's certiorari petition. Indeed, a petition for certiorari should only be granted when grave abuse of discretion exists - that is, when a court or tribunal acts in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.55 These qualities of capriciousness and whimsicality the Court finds wanting in any of the NLRC 's actions in this case; as such, the reversal of the CA's Decision is hereby warranted.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 14, 2012 and the Resolution dated April 12, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 1 08385-MIN are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolutions dated October 31, 2008 and February 12, 2009 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. 01-000428-2008 are REINSTATED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,* Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ., concur.
* Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 1757 dated August 20, 2014.
2 Id. at 110-117. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Renato C. Francisco, concurring.
3 Id. at 133-134. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Edgardo T. Lloren, concurring.
4 Id. at 59-62. Penned by Presiding Commissioner Salic B. Dumarpa, with Commissioners Proculo T. Sarrnen and Dominador B. Medroso, Jr., concurring.
11 Id. at 33 and 37.
12 See id. at 33, 47, and Ill.
13 NLRC records, Vol. I, p. 94.
14Rollo, pp. 60 and 111-112.
15 Id. at 46-49. Penned by LA Melchisedek A. Guan.
27 Id. at 114-11 5.
30 See GMA Network, Inc. v. Pabriga, G.R. No. 176419, November27, 2013.
34Andrada v. NLRC, 565 Phil. 821, 842-843 (2007), citing Sebuguero v. NLRC, G.R. No. 115394, September 27, 1995, 248 SCRA 532, 542; and Dela Cruz v. NLRC, 335 Phil. 932, 939-940 (1997).
35Dela Cruz v. NLRC, id. at 940.
38 496 Phil. 164 (2005).
39 Id. at 177; citation omitted.
40 See id. at 177-178.
41 See id. at 173-178. See also Julie's Bake Shop v. Arnaiz, GR. No. 173884, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 101, 112-118.
42 339 Phil. 395 (1997).
45 NLRC records, Vol. I, p. 94.
47 See Sevillana v. I.T. (International) Corp./Samir Maddah & Travellers Insurance & Surety Corp., 408 Phil. 570, 583-588 (200 I).
48 486 Phil. 348 (2004).
49 350 Phil 859 (1998).
50Nasipit Lumber Co. v. National Organization of Workingmen (NOWM), supra note 48, at 363-364.
51Phil. Industrial Security Agency Corp. v. Dapiton, 377 Phil. 951, 962 (1999).
52Pido v. NLRC, 545 Phil. 507, 516 (2007). .
53 497 Phil. 621 (2005).
55Yu v. Hon. Reyes-Carpio, G.R. No. 189207, June 15, 20 II, 652 SCRA 341, 348; citations omitted.

References: v. 
 Art. 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.