504 Phil. 106
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
"We reverse.Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated September 24, 2001.
Respondents allege that the cause of the dismissal of complainants was the cessation of respondents' business. Respondents said in their Reply to Position Paper that "Complainants were all validly terminated by the respondents due to the closure of the Stanley Garments Specialist by virtue of grave financial loses as so provided under Art. 205 of the Labor Code x x x." The Decision says that respondent company had adequately complied with the procedural aspect of termination as so mandated by law. We disagree.x x x
The law is clear that before any employee is terminated due to closure of business, a one (1) month prior written notice to the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment (former Ministry of Labor and Employment) is required. This mandatory requirement had not been done by respondents in this case. What respondents did was to write the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on December 12, 1997 stating the reason of the closure and the effectivity dates of complainants' termination. And then on January 4, 1998, respondents filed with DOLE the monthly report on employees termination. There was no proof that complainants were served with individual written notices of their termination one month before the intended closure of the business.
Assuming that respondents had complied with the formal requirement of notice and report with the DOLE, the formal compliance is not enough to dismiss the employees. The grave financial losses as alleged by respondents which caused the closure of business must be sufficiently proven by the employer as also mandated under paragraph (b) of Art. 277 of the Labor Code which states, in part, that "the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer."
Respondents should have submitted proofs about their financial losses. Mere allegation is not evidence much less the truth thereof. Otherwise, we shall be putting the fate of the worker, who shall suffer loss of his means of livelihood, at the mercy of some scheming employers. The notice to the employees and to DOLE is only a part of the procedural requirement that must be complied with. The other equally indispensable part is the substantive requirement of having to prove the financial losses sustained by respondents. Here, respondents failed in both.x x x
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the dismissal of complainants as illegal. Respondents Stanley Garments Specialist and/or Anicia Co and Fernando Co are hereby ordered to reinstate complainants to their former position without loss of seniority rights and other benefits with payment of backwages from the date of their dismissal up to actual reinstatement. If reinstatement is not possible, respondents shall pay complainants separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service plus backwages from the date of dismissal up to the date of this decision.
In addition to the above, complainants shall be paid their salary differential resulting from underpayment of their wages plus payment of their service incentive leave pay.
The separation pay already received by George B. Gomez, Evelyn Balot and Gina Ambong shall be deducted from their respective awards under this decision.xxx
SO ORDERED."
"The onus even befalls heavier upon the employer when there is an allegation that a similar business was put up immediately after the cessation of its former business and the closure was merely resorted to as a scheme to get rid of its regular employees, as in the case at bar. We have scoured the records including the pleadings a quo and found no proof that Stanley Garments Specialist was suffering from financial losses at the time it was closed. On the contrary, petitioners did not even refute the allegation of private respondents that they put up a similar business using the same machineries immediately after closing Stanley Garments Specialist, thereby giving credence to such an allegation. Not even in this petition did they raise any proof or argument to refute such a damning assertion. Their silence should therefore work against their favor.In a Resolution dated August 14, 2002, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
x x x
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
"Art. 283. Closure of Establishment and Reduction of Personnel. - The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operations of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the worker and the Department of Labor and Employment, at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. x x x. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closure or cessation of operations of the establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year."In Trendline Employees Association-Southern Philippines Federation of Labor vs. NLRC,[5] we enumerated the requisites of retrenchment, thus:
"To be valid, three requisites must concur, as provided in Article 283 of the Labor Code, as amended, namely: (1) The retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and the same is proven; (2) Written notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date thereof; and (3) Payment of separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least ½ month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher."Here, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, in concluding that respondents' retrenchment is unlawful, found that petitioners failed (1) to present evidence showing that petitioner company suffered from serious financial losses; and (2) to comply with the one-month notice requirement to the affected employees and the DOLE. We agree.
"ART. 279. Security of Tenure. - In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. And employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement."Verily, respondents who were illegally dismissed from work are entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time their compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement.[7]
Names of Respondents- Employees | Years of Service | Nature of Work | Daily Salary |
(1) George B. Gomez | 6 years & 8 months | Assistant Cutter | P 185.00 |
(2) Gina Ambong | 3 years & 8 months | Sewer | 74.00 |
(3) Cecilia Mariano | 3 years & 8 months | Sewer | 70.00 |
(4) Elsie De Vera | 5 years & 2 months | Sewer | 70.00 |
(5) Evelyn Balot | 8 years & 7 months | Assistant Supervisor | 241.00 |
(6) Irene Ambong | 1 year & 6 months | Sewer | 100.00 |
(7) Dennis Balot | 2 years & 5 months | Driver | 185.00 |
(7) Dennis Balot | 2 years & 5 months | Driver | 185.00 |
(8) Marichu Regondola | 3 years & 11 months | Sewer | 70.00 |
(8) Marichu Regondola | 3 years & 11 months | Sewer | 70.00 |
(9) Mercedes Mamaril | 5 years & 11 months | Sewer | 75.00 |
(10) Roslyn Piolquid | 5 years & 8 months | Sewer | 75.00 |