G.R. No. 235873 - ENRIQUE MARCO G. YULO, VS. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC.,*.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the LA ordered respondent to reinstate petitioner to his former position without loss of seniority rights, and to pay him the amount of P133,862.11 representing his backwages and P2,742.75 as his proportionate 13 th month pay, as well as moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P40,000.00 and ten percent (10%) attorney's fees in the amount of P17,660.48. [19] Aggrieved, respondent appealed [20] to the NLRC. The NLRC Ruling In a Decision [21] dated March 30, 2016, the NLRC affirmed the LA's conclusion that respondent was illegally dismissed. [22] While the NLRC found that respondent did comply with the notice requirements of: (1) informing petitioner of his termination based on redundancy; and (2) sending a notice-report to the DOLE of the employees to be redundated within thirty (30) days prior to the effectivity of redundancy, [23] petitioner nonetheless failed to: (a) pay petitioner's separation pay; (b) exhibit good faith in terminating petitioner's employment; and (c) competently prove its criteria in ascertaining the redundant positions. [24] Dissatisfied, respondent moved for reconsideration [25] but the same was denied in a Resolution [26] dated May 30, 2016. Hence, respondent elevated the matter to the CA via a petition for certiorari . [27] The CA Ruling In a Decision [28] dated August 17, 2017, the CA granted respondent's petition and set aside the ruling of the NLRC. [29] It ruled that petitioner's dismissal was legal since respondent strictly complied with the procedural requirements in the implementation of a valid redundancy program, and that the same was implemented in good faith since respondent endeavored to fit petitioner to other positions but unfortunately failed to qualify for any other position in any other account. In addition, the CA noted that based on the company's records, petitioner's performance was below par, his attendance record was low, and he even had a high negative response rate; [30] thus, his dismissal was justified. Petitioner moved for reconsideration [31] but the same was denied in a Resolution [32] dated November 29, 2017; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly ruled that petitioner was legally dismissed on the ground of redundancy. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. Under Article 298 (formerly 283) of the Labor Code, redundancy is recognized as an authorized cause for dismissal, viz .: Article 298 [283]. Closure of Establishment and Reduction of Personnel . - The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy , retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intende