G.R. Nos. 102472-84 - JUAN SABALLA, LAILANI J. MIRANDA, NELIA I. IBARRIENTOS, HELEN G. QUIAMBAO, WILBERTO D. AMPARADO AND FIDEL S. MANAOG, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND CAMARINES SUR III ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC..

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the forced leave imposed upon complainants in July, 1988 and complainants termination from employment due to retrenchment in October, 1988, are hereby declared illegal. (Private respondent) is hereby ordered to immediately reinstate complainants x x x to their former positions without loss of seniority rights. Respondent is likewise ordered to pay the said complainants their backwages computed from July, 1988 up to the time of their reinstatement subject however to further computation upon actual reinstatement of the complainants. xxx xxx xxx." Private respondent appealed the arbiters decision to the respondent Commission, which modified the arbiters ruling thus: [14] "x x x we lend credence to respondents evidence supporting the fact that indeed it suffered financial reverses (pp. 118-136). Hence, complainants separation is valid, due to retrenchment. However, respondents implementation of forced leave without pay which was already tantamount to dismissal as subsequently herein complainants were dismissed did not comply with (the) requisite thirty day notice on DOLE and complainants. Under the circumstances, complainants are entitled to an additional one month pay as indemnification for lack of notice (AHS vs. NLRC, 149 SCRA 5). PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Decision of February 9, 1990 is hereby MODIFIED. Respondents are directed to pay complainants separation pay of one month per year of service in addition to one month salary for lack of notice. Respondents, however, are enjoined to give priority to complainants in the event of rehiring." Hence, this petition for certiorari. The Solicitor General manifested that he was unable to sustain the position taken by public respondent and moved that the latter be ordered to file its own Comment. The public respondent filed its own Comment, which the private respondent adopted. Subsequently, the parties submitted their respective memoranda. The Issue The petitioners raised the lone issue of whether or not: "RESPONDENT NLRC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN, DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, IT DECLARED THE RETRENCHMENT OF PETITIONERS VALID AND LEGAL." Petitioners argue that while the NLRC claimed to disagree with the factual findings/conclusions of the arbiter, it did not state what particular findings and conclusions it could not go along with; and while the Decision purports to apply the requisites for a valid retrenchment, the public respondent did not specify what those were. Further, citing Lopez Sugar Corporation vs. Federation of Free Workers, [15] petitioners claim that private respondent failed to show by convincing proof the concurrence of the requirements for valid retrenchment, and among other things, failed to show that the losses sought to be prevented were substantial and reasonably imminent. On the contrary, according to petitioners, the evidence on record clearly shows that the enforcement of the retrenchment pro