G.R. No. 159641 - CALTEX (PHILS.), INC. (NOW CHEVRON PHILIPPINES, INC.),*, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ROMEO T. STO. TOMAS.**D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE and judgment is hereby rendered: Declaring the dismissal of complainant to be without a just or authorized cause and, therefore, illegal. Ordering respondent Caltex (Phils.) Inc. to reinstate the complainant to his former or substantially equivalent position, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to pay complainant his full backwages inclusive of allowance and other benefits computed from August 1, 1997 up to his actual reinstatement. However, should complainants reinstatement be no longer feasible due to some valid reasons, respondent Caltex (Phils.) Inc., is hereby ordered to pay complainant his separation pay computed at one (1) month pay for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months to be considered as one (1) whole year. The separation pay shall be in addition to complainants full backwages. All other claims of complainant are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. [9] In so ruling, the NLRC expounded that although Article 283 of the Labor Code authorizes termination due to redundancy, there must be factual basis; that the records did not disclose any evidence to show basis for respondents termination; that neither did petitioner send notice to DOLE one month prior to respondents dismissal. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution [10] dated March 27, 2001. Petitioner filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion committed by the NLRC in finding respondents termination illegal. In a Decision dated May 15, 2003, the CA denied the petition. The CA ruled that there was no reason to deviate from the findings of the NLRC since the pieces of evidence presented by petitioner are not only insufficient but also baseless and self-serving; that petitioners main argument that private respondents dismissal on the ground of redundancy was only resorted to after a conduct of thorough business process reengineering study and research is nothing but a bare assertion; that nowhere in the records can it be found that there was indeed a study conducted by petitioner which culminated in the abolition and consolidation of certain positions in the office; that neither was there any proof that petitioner truly had a concrete redundancy program that is reflective of any financial loss or possible and obtainable substantial profits in case the program is implemented nor were there any named factors considered by the petitioner in undertaking the reduction program; that what petitioner presented was merely a copy of its letter to the DOLE informing the latter of its intention to implement a redundancy program and nothing more; and that petitioner failed to apply the criteria in effecting private respondents dismissal due to redundancy as there was no showing that it underwent painstaking selection from among its employees to be dismissed. The CA further found that petitioner failed to send D