Cited Laws
accordingly, held the companys closure to be valid. It is a rule that absent any showing that the findings of fact of the labor tribunals and the appellate court are not supported by evidence on record or the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, the Court shall not examine anew the evidence submitted by the parties. [31] Perforce, without any cogent reason to deviate from the findings on the validity of SPIs closure, the Court thus holds that SPI is not obliged to give separation benefits to the minority employees pursuant to Article 297 of the Labor Code as interpreted in the case of Galaxie . As such, SPI should not be directed to give financial assistance amounting to P15,000.00 to each of the minority employees based on the Formal Offer of Settlement. If at all, such formal offer should be deemed only as a calculated move on SPIs part to further minimize the expenses that it will be bound to incur should litigation drag on, and not as an indication that it was still financially sustainable. However, since SPEU chose not to accept, said offer did not ripen into an enforceable obligation on the part of SPI from which financial assistance could have been realized by the minority employees. B. Insufficient Notice of Closure. Article 297 of the Labor Code provides that before any employee is terminated due to closure of business, it must give a one (1) month prior written notice to the employee and to the DOLE. In this relation, case law instructs that it is the personal right of the employee to be personally informed of his proposed dismissal as well as the reasons therefor; and such requirement of notice is not a mere technicality or formality which the employer may dispense with. [32] Since the purpose of previous notice is to, among others, give the employee some time to prepare for the eventual loss of his job, [33] the employer has the positive duty to inform each and every employee of their impending termination of employment. To this end, jurisprudence states that an employers act of posting notices to this effect in conspicuous areas in the workplace is not enough. Verily, for something as significant as the involuntary loss of ones employment, nothing less than an individually-addressed notice of dismissal supplied to each worker is proper.As enunciated in the case of Galaxie : [34] Finally, with regard to the notice requirement, the Labor Arbiter found, and it was upheld by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, that the written notice of closure or cessation of Galaxies business operations was posted on the company bulletin board one month prior to its effectivity. The mere posting on the company bulletin board does not, however, meet the requirement under Article [297] of serving a written notice on the workers. The purpose of the written notice is to inform the employees of the specific date of termination or closure of business operations, and must be served upon them at least one month before the date of effectivity