G.R. No. 238941 - BERNILO M. AGUILERA, VS. COCA-COLA FEMSA PHILIPPINES, INC..

Ruling

WHEREFORE , undersigned renders judgment: 1. Declaring that complainant was illegally dismissed; 2. Directing respondent Coke to REINSTATE complainant to his former or equivalent position within ten days from receipt hereof; and to submit compliance with this directive for reinstatement within the same number of days; and to pay him the amount of EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN PESOS & 65/100 (P817,697.65) as and for payment of his partial backwages, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees: and 3. Directing the parties to arrange a reasonable scheme of payment where the monetary awards here would be offset from the separation pay already received by complainant. SO ORDERED . [24] Labor Arbiter Guan noted that the company did not show good faith in abolishing petitioner's position as Cold Drink Associate. Nor did it follow fair and reasonable criteria in determining the positions to be declared redundant and the employees who ought to go or stay. The mere fact that petitioner got served with a notice of termination and signed a quitclaim did not automatically make the supposed redundancy valid. [25] In fine, the Labor Arbiter ordered the company to reinstate petitioner, with backwages and moral and exemplary damages. It further directed the parties to devise a scheme to offset the monetary award against the separation pay already received by petitioner. [26] The Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission By Decision [27] dated June 30, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed with modification. It deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages for lack of basis but granted attorney's fees. It echoed the Labor Arbiter's finding that the company failed to show good faith and the existence of fair and reasonable criteria it supposedly followed in determining the positions to be declared redundant and the employees to be affected thereby. [28] In the company's partial motion for reconsideration, for the first time, it submitted the result of petitioner's psychometric examination to prove that his Intelligence Quotient (IQ) score does not match the prescribed qualifications for the newly created positions. [29] Under Resolution dated September 26, 2016, the company's partial motion for reconsideration was denied. [30] The Proceedings before the Court of Appeals Undaunted, the company went to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari . It claimed to have acted in good faith and adhered to fair and reasonable criteria in determining the positions to be abolished and the employees to be dismissed under its redundancy program. Petitioner's performance for the last three (3) years of his employment was unsatisfactory and the result of his psychometric evaluation did not satisfy the requirements of the newly created positions in the company. Lastly, petitioner's quitclaim precludes him from pursuing any further claims against it. [31] In refutation, petitioner challenged anew the compan