Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52981:gr-168927-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:42:21+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 168927 - Arsenio F. Quevedo, et al. v. Benguet Electric Cooperative Incorporated, et al.
ARSENIO F. QUEVEDO, LAWRENCE CAMARILLO, ABELARDO MARQUEZ, JOSEPHINE CALINAO, CLEMENCIA COSALAN, CORAZON T. DULFO, NORMA BUDOD, ELIZABETH ANIS, MILAGROS RAMOS, JOVITA RILLERA, ERLINDA T. PABLO, JULIET SUBIDO, and WILFREDA RUIZ, Petitioners, v. BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED (BENECO) and GERARDO P. VERZOSA as Manager, Respondents.
For review1 is the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals, dated 29 April 2005, dismissing petitioners' complaint for illegal termination of employment and its Resolution, dated 13 July 2005, denying reconsideration.
Petitioners are former employees of respondent Benguet Electric Cooperative, Incorporated (BENECO). Before 1999, BENECO started automating its operations, rendering superfluous functions performed by some employees, including petitioners. Instead of terminating petitioners' employment outright for redundancy and paying them the statutory benefits,3 BENECO offered petitioners the option to retire under a newly created optional retirement program (Early Voluntary Retirement [EVR]) guaranteeing petitioners bigger benefits.4 After unsuccessfully requesting BENECO to retain their services, petitioners accepted BENECO's offer, received payments, and released BENECO from further liability in individually executed contracts.
In September 2000, nearly four months after leaving BENECO, petitioners sued BENECO at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Arbitration Branch, Cordillera Administrative Region, Baguio City for illegal dismissal.5 Petitioners claimed that they had no intention of retiring from service but their hands were forced because BENECO would have terminated their services. Petitioners questioned the validity of BENECO's downsizing in light of BENECO's hiring of new employees shortly after petitioners left the corporation.
In a Decision dated 13 February 2001, the Labor Arbiter6 dismissed petitioners' complaint for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter rejected petitioners' claim of dismissal without cause, holding instead that petitioners retired from service voluntarily. The Labor Arbiter gave no credence to petitioners' claim of vitiated consent after noting petitioners' educational backgrounds7 and the extent of benefits they received.8 Contrary to petitioners' allegation, the Labor Arbiter found that the new employees BENECO hired were project employees who performed tasks unrelated to petitioners' work.
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC.
In its Decision dated 28 November 2003, the NLRC granted petitioners' appeal, set aside the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and ordered BENECO to reinstate petitioners with full backwages less benefits received.9 The NLRC gave credence to petitioners' claim of involuntary retirement. Further, the NLRC held BENECO liable for dismissing petitioners without cause, as it failed to prove redundancy, and without due process, as BENECO failed to notify the Department of Labor of petitioners' termination.
BENECO sought reconsideration but the NLRC denied its motion.
BENECO appealed to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari contending that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter's finding that petitioners retired from service voluntarily. Further, BENECO invoked the terms of the waivers petitioners signed releasing BENECO from further liability.
In its Decision dated 29 April 2005, the Court of Appeals granted BENECO's appeal, set aside the NLRC's ruling and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The Court of Appeals found more in accord with the records the Labor Arbiter's finding that petitioners retired from service of their own volition, thus precluding any finding of illegal dismissal. Further, the Court of Appeals found merit in BENECO's contention that petitioners were barred under the terms of their waiver contracts from seeking further benefits from BENECO.
Petitioners sought reconsideration but the Court of Appeals denied their motion in the Resolution of 13 July 2005.
Hence, this petition. Petitioners pray for the reinstatement of the NLRC's ruling.
The issue is whether BENECO is liable for illegal dismissal.
We rule in the negative. We affirm the Court of Appeals' ruling that petitioners retired from service voluntarily.
Nothing in the records offends any of these criteria.
Further, petitioners were afforded opportunity to seek reconsideration of BENECO's decision to downsize, albeit without success as BENECO stood pat on its management decision.
To appreciate the regularity of what transpired here, one need only compare it with the unceremonious treatment of the employee in De Leon v. National Labor Relations Commission19 who, despite not having applied for retirement, received notice from his employer that his "application for retirement has been accepted."20 Worse, the employee in De Leon, unlike petitioners, was not afforded the chance to question his supposed retirement.
[T]he abolition of a position deemed no longer necessary is a management prerogative, and this Court, absent any findings of malice and arbitrariness on the part of management, will not efface such privilege if only to protect the person holding that office.
The respondent in Fianza was among the twenty BENECO employees whose positions, including petitioners,' were rendered superfluous by the reorganization.
To excuse petitioners from complying with the terms of their waivers, they must locate their case within any of three narrow grounds: (1) the employer used fraud or deceit in obtaining the waivers; (2) the consideration the employer paid is incredible and unreasonable; or (3) the terms of the waiver are contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.31 The preceding discussion on the voluntariness of petitioners' retirement from service effectively removes these grounds beyond petitioners' argumentative reach. Accordingly, petitioners, by the terms of their waivers, are barred from filing this suit.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 April 2005 and its Resolution dated 13 July 2005.
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated 8 September 2009.
1 Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Lucas P. Bersamin, concurring.
3 Under Article 283 of the Labor Code, petitioners were entitled to receive separation benefits equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month salary for every year of service, whichever is higher.
5 Petitioners also sought to hold BENECO liable for unfair labor practice but this cause of action is no longer pursued here. The NLRC, at the arbiter and commission level, found no merit in this claim.
7 Except for petitioners Calinao and Anis who took secretarial courses, the rest of the petitioners hold degrees in accounting or economics.
9 Alternatively, the NLRC ordered BENECO to give separation pay to petitioners should reinstatement prove not feasible.
10 Under Article 283 of the Labor Code.
11 Soberano v. Secretary of Labor, 187 Phil. 873 (1980).
12 For dismissals due to authorized causes under Article 283, the benefits are computed as follows: "In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year." For dismissal based on employee illness under Article 284, the separation pay is equivalent to "at least one (1) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year." For dismissals without cause, the employer is liable to pay backwages, other applicable benefits, and damages, when appropriate.
13 Which is "at least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year" with the term "one-half (1/2) month salary" defined as "fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves."
14 San Miguel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 354 Phil. 815 (1998); De Leon v. National Labor Relations Commission, 188 Phil. 666 (1980).
15 De Leon v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra.
16 San Miguel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra.
17 The concept of "forced retirement" has been enlarged to cover "moral and psychological" compulsion (Id. at 825).
18 Rollo, pp. 54, 56.
For petitioner Wilfreda Ruiz, it cannot be ascertained from the records how much she was entitled to receive under Article 283 although she received P342,511.22 under the EVR program.
23 In individually signed acceptance forms (CA rollo, pp. 75-81).
25 Section 3(m), Rule 131, Revised Rules of Evidence.
26 Under Article 277 of the Labor Code, the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause rests on the employer.
27 468 Phil. 980 (2004).
30 Under Article 1315 of the Civil Code, parties to contracts "are bound to the fulfillment not only of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law."
31 See More Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC, 366 Phil. 646 (1999).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.