G.R. No. 172363 - JUVY M. MANATAD, vs. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 18 September 2001 and Resolution dated 22 July 2003 of [NLRC] as well as the Decision dated 14 July 1999 of the Labor Arbiter are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. However, [herein respondent] is hereby ordered to pay [herein petitioner] Php43,5000.00 as separation pay. No costs. [5] The present controversy stems from the following antecedent factual and procedural facts: In September 1988, petitioner was employed by respondent Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (PT&T) as junior clerk with a monthly salary of P3,839.74. She was later promoted as Account Executive, the position she held until she was temporarily laid off from employment on 1 September 1998. Petitioners temporary separation from employment was pursuant to the Temporary Staff Reduction Program adopted by respondent due to serious business reverses. On 16 November 1998, petitioner received a letter from respondent inviting her to avail herself of its Staff Reduction Program Package equivalent to one-month salary for every year of service, one and one-half month salary, pro-rated 13th month pay, conversion to cash of unused vacation and sick leave credits, and Health Maintenance Organization and group life insurance coverage until full payment of the separation package. Petitioner, however, did not opt to avail herself of the said package. On 26 February 1999, petitioner received a Notice of Retrenchment from respondent permanently dismissing her from employment effective 16 February 1999. Consequently, petitioner filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent, its Regional Director for Visayas Reynaldo Macrohon, and its President and Chief Executive Officer Marilyn Eleonor Santiago before the Labor Arbiter claiming the award of separation pay, damages and attorneys fees. In her Position Paper, petitioner mainly alleged that the retrenchment program adopted by respondent was illegal for it was gaining profits for the period of July 1997 to June 1998. In support of her allegation that respondent was obtaining profits, petitioner presented the central Visayas Operating Margin Reports [6] showing the respondents gross revenue and net profits in the region for the period in question: Month Gross Revenue Net Profit July 1997 P2,496,981.31 P775,742.82 August 1997 2,314,527.75 662,812.13 September 1997 2,308,364.14 604,924.51 October 1997 2,403,083.30 649,583.33 November 1997 1,965,446.44 367,956.48 December 1997 2,391,721.94 657,023.23 January 1998 2,649,857.35 825,581.17 February 1998 2,611,029.13 702,132.23 March 1998 2,340,166.83 488,549.78 April 1998 2,199,814.78 230,380.21 May 1998 2,186,735.40 403,416.66 June 1998 2,240,238.94 500,656.64 Petitioner further belied respondents contention that it was suffering from serious financial reverses by presenting respondents Special Order No. 98-21 [7] granting an increase in the salaries of its employees under Job Grade 8 and 9 in the amount of P2,300.00 a month effective