Gertrudes D. Mejila,, Petitioner vs. Wrigley Philippines, Inc., Jesselyn P. PANIS, ET AL., Respondents

5. GERTRUDES D. MEJILA,, petitioner vs. WRIGLEY PHILIPPINES, INC., JESSELYN P.
PANIS, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. No. 199505. September 11, 2019.]
FACTS:
WPI is a corporation engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of chewing gum. It engaged the
services of Mejila, a registered nurse, as an occupational health practitioner for its Antipolo manufacturing
facility sometime in April 2002. Her employment status was initially on a contractual basis until she was
regularized effective January 1, 2007.
WPI sent a memorandum to Mejila informing her that her position has been abolished as a result of the
company's manpower rationalization program and that her employment will be terminated effective November
26, 2007. On the same date, WPI notified the Department of Labor and Employment's Rizal Field Office of its
decision to terminate Mejila and two others due to redundancy. In the meantime, WPI engaged the services of
Activeone Health, Inc. to take over the services previously handled by the occupational health practitioners
starting November 1, 2007. The abolition of WPI's in-house clinic services and decision to hire an independent
contractor for clinic operations was part of the management's Headcount Optimization Program designed to
improve cost efficiency.
Mejila filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against WPI and its officers, Jesselyn Panis, and Michael
Panlaqui, who are WPI's Factory Director and People Learning and Development Manager, respectively. The
Labor Arbiter ruled that Mejila was illegally dismissed and held that WPI failed to comply with the procedural
due process requirements.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter. It held that as
early as February 2007, WPI management had already deliberated on the feasibility of a Headcount
Optimization Program for the purpose of streamlining the organization and increasing productivity. With respect
to the due process issue, the NLRC held that notice to the Rizal Provincial Office is sufficient compliance since it
is a satellite office of the Regional Office.
The CA affirmed the NLRC's finding that Mejila was not illegally dismissed.However, the CA held that
WPI failed to properly serve the notice of termination to the DOLE Regional Office as required by the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code. Thus, the CA awarded nominal damages to Mejila, as
well as attorney's fees pursuant to Article 111 of the Labor Code.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner was illegally dismissed.
HELD: No. The Labor Code recognizes redundancy as an authorized cause for the termination of employment.
Article 298 (formerly Article 283) Redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is
reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. Redundancy, for purposes of our Labor
Code, exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual
requirements of the enterprise. The employer has no legal obligation to keep in its payroll more employees than
are necessary for the operation of its business.
The determination that the employee's services are no longer necessary or sustainable and, therefore,
properly terminable is an exercise of business judgment of the employer. The wisdom or soundness of this
judgment is not subject to discretionary review of the labor tribunals and the courts, provided there is no
violation of law and no showing that it was prompted by an arbitrary or malicious act. It must produce adequate
proof that such is the actual situation to justify the dismissal of the affected employees, for redundancy. We
have considered evidence such as the new staffing pattern, feasibility studies, proposal on the viability of the
newly created positions, job description and the approval by the management of the restructuring, among
others, as adequate to substantiate a claim for redundancy.
In the present case. We agree with the CA and the NLRC that WPI substantially proved that its
Headcount Optimization Program was a fair exercise of business judgment. The decision to outsource clinic
operations can hardly be considered as whimsical or arbitrary. Mejila failed to prove her accusation that WPI
acted with ill motives in implementing the redundancy program. The pieces of evidence presented by Mejila to
support her allegation were mainly hearsay and speculative at best. In implementing a redundancy program,
Article 298 requires employers to serve a written notice to both the affected employees and the DOLE at least
one month prior to the intended date of termination.
Where termination is based on authorized causes under Article 298, substantial compliance is not
enough. Since the dismissal is initiated by the employer's exercise of its management prerogative, strict
observance of the proper procedure is required in order to give life to the constitutional protection afforded to
labor. An employer's failure to comply with the procedural requirements under the Labor Code entitles the
dismissed employee to nominal damages. If the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 298 but
the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction is stiffer compared to termination
based on Article 297 because the dismissal was initiated by the employer's exercise of its management
prerogative. After finding that both notices to Mejila and the DOLE were defective, We accordingly hold that
WPI is liable to pay nominal damages in the sum of P50,000.00.

Gertrudes D. Mejila,, Petitioner vs. Wrigley Philippines, Inc., Jesselyn P. PANIS, ET AL., Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gertrudes D. Mejila,, Petitioner vs. Wrigley Philippines, Inc., Jesselyn P. PANIS, ET AL., Respondents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gertrudes D. Mejila,, Petitioner vs. Wrigley Philippines, Inc., Jesselyn P. PANIS, ET AL., Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5. GERTRUDES D. MEJILA,, petitioner vs. WRIGLEY PHILIPPINES, INC., JESSELYN P.

PANIS, ET AL., respondents.

[G.R. No. 199505. September 11, 2019.]

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner was illegally dismissed.

You might also like