G.R. NO. 148372 - CLARION PRINTING HOUSE, INC., AND EULOGIO YUTINGCO, VS. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION) AND MICHELLE MICLAT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondent to reinstate complainan t to her former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and benefits and to pay her backwages, from the time of dismissal to actual reinstatement, proportionate 13th month pay and two (2) days salary computed as follows: a.1) Backwages 10/23/97 to 11/30/98 P6,500.00 x 13.25 months = P86,125.00 a.2) Proportionate 13th month pay 1/12 of P86,125 = 7,177.08 b) 13th month pay - 1997 =P6,500 x 9.75 months/12 = 5,281.25 c) Two days salary =P6,500/26 x 2 days = 500.00 TOTAL P 99,083.33 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied). Before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to which petitioners appealed, they argued that: [10] 1. [CLARION] was placed under receivership thereby evidencing the fact that it sustained business losses to warrant the termination of [Miclat] from her employment. 2. The dismissal of [Miclat] from her employment having been effected in accordance with the law and in good faith, [Miclat] does not deserve to be reinstated and paid backwages, 13th month pay and two (2) days salary. And petitioners pointed out that CLARION had expressed its decision to shutdown its operations by Memorandum [11] of January 7, 1998 to its company managers. Appended to petitioners appeal before the NLRC were photocopies of their balance sheets from 1997 to November 1998 which they claimed to unanimously show that x x x [petitioner] company experienced business reverses which were made the basis x x x in retrenching x x x. [12] By Resolution [13] of June 17, 1999, the NLRC affirmed the labor arbiters decision. The pertinent portion of the NLRC Resolution reads: There are three (3) valid requisites for valid retrenchment : (1) the retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and such losses are proven; (2) written notices to the employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; and (3) payment of separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least ½ month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. The two notices are mandatory. If the notice to the workers is later than the notices sent to DOLE, the date of termination should be at least one month from the date of notice to the workers. In Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Federation of Free Workers Philippine Labor Union Association (PLUA-NACUSIP) and National Labor Relations Commission, the Supreme Court had the occasion to set forth four standards which would justify retrenchment, being, firstly, - the losses expected should be substantial and not merely de minimis in extent. If the loss purportedly sought to be forestalled by retrenchment is clearly shown to be insubstantial and inconsequential in character, the bona fide nature of the retrenchment would appear to be seriously in question; secondly, - the substantial loss apprehended must be reasonably imminent, as such imminenc