G.R. No. 131108 - ASIAN ALCOHOL CORPORATION, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION, CEBU CITY AND ERNESTO A. CARIAS, ROBERTO C. MARTINEZ, RAFAEL H. SENDON, CARLOS A. AMACIO, LEANDRO O. VERAYO AND ERENEO S. TORMO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly to respondent AAC, its boiler before was 100% coal fired. The boiler was manned by a briquetting plant operator in the person of Leandro Verayo and three (3) briquetting helpers, namely, Ereneo Tormo, Eriberto Songaling, Jr. and Rudy Javier, Jr. Since AAC had shifted to the use of bunker fuel by about 70% to fire its boiler, its usage of coal had been drastically reduced to only 30% of its total fuel usage in its production plant, thereby saving on fuel cost. For this reason, there was no more need for the position of briquetting plant operator and the services for only two briquetting helpers were determined to be adequate for the job of briquetting coal. Of the three (3) briquetting helpers, Ereneo Tormo was the oldest, being already 41 years old, the other two, Javier and Songaling, being only 28 and 35 respectively. Considering the manual nature of the work of coal briquetting, younger workers are always preferred for reasons of efficiency [sic]. Hence the abolition of the position of Ereneo Tormo. We have to stress that Eriberto Songaling, Jr. and Rudy Javier, Jr. are also union members. x x x With respect to Carlos Amacio, he was retrenched not because of his being a union member but because of his poor health condition which greatly affect[ed] his work efficiency. Records show that Carlos Amacio was among the ten machine shop mechanics employed by respondent AAC. Under AAC's reorganization plan, it needs only nine mechanics. x x x On the whole, therefore, the dismissal of complainants on ground of redundancy/retrenchment was perfectly valid or legal." [12] Private respondents appealed to the NLRC. On May 30, 1997, the NLRC rendered the challenged decision. It rejected the evidence proffered by Asian Alcohol to prove its business reversals. It ruled that the positions of private respondents were not redundant for the simple reason that they were replaced by casuals. The NLRC essayed this explanation: "In this case, [that] the respondent terminated complainants `to protect the company from future losses,' does not create an impression of imminent loss. The company at the time of retrenchment was not then in the state of business reverses. There is therefore no reason to retrench. x x x The alleged deficits of the corporations did not prove anything for the respondent. The financial status as shown in the Statement of Income and Deficits and Income Tax Returns from 1989 to 1991, submitted by respondent was before the respondent, new management of Prior Holdings, Inc., took over the operation and management of the corporation in October, 199 [1] . This is no proof that on November 30, 1992 when the termination of complainant[s] took effect the company was experiencing losses or at least imminent losses. Possible future losses do not authorize retrenchment. Secondly in the case of REDUNDANCY. Redundancy exist where the service[s] of x x x employee[s] are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the ente