April 13, 2013 | Brion, J. | Certiorari | Jurisdiction of Courts Sandiganbayan For Criminal Procedure PETITIONERS: Franklin Alejandro RESPONDENTS: Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, represented by Atty. Maria Olivia Elena A. Roxas SUMMARY: DOCTRINE: FACTS: 1. The MWSI (Manila Waters Services, Inc) in coordination with the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) conducted an anti-water pilferage operation against MICO (Mico Car Wash) in response to a report that MICO, owned by Algredo Rap Alejandro, has been illegally opening an MWSI fire hydrant and using it to operate its carwash business in Binondo, Manila. 2. During the investigation, It was discovered that MICOs carwash boys indeed had been illegally getting water from a MWSI fire hydrant. PNP-CIDG arrested the carwash boys and confiscated the containers used in getting water. HOWEVER, at this point, the petitioner, Alfredos father and the Barangay Chairman or punong barangay of Barangay 293, Zone 28, Binondo, Manila, interfered with the PNP-CIDGs operation by ordering several men to unload the confiscated containers. This intervention caused further commotion and created an opportunity for the apprehended car-wash boys to escape ISSUE: 1. WoN petitioners retired or Philex dismissed them from services DISMISSED for Retrenchment 2. WoN the dismissal was illegal YES RULING: Petition GRANTED. RATIO: 1. The Arbitrator and CA based their decisions on the fact that the petitioners availed and acquired the retirement gratuity as evidenced by the quitclaims and receipts. HOWEVER, the court held that the retirement gratuity regarged by Philex is actually a separation pay as it was paid because of the petitioners retrenchment. The letter of notice delivered to Benjamin Biete (one of the petitioners) states: You will be retiring from service due to separation at the instance of Philex Mining Corporation as a result of its retrenchment program. Since your separation is for cause beyond your control, you will be entitled to payment of retirement gratuity under the Retirement Gratuity Plan. CLEARLY, Philex treated the retirement gratuity as petitioners basic separation pay. Significantly, Philex paid petitioners such separation pay after notifying them of their retrenchment. 2. FURTHERMORE, Philex failed to submit other documents proving petitioners retirement, such as their application for retirement under Philexs early retirement program and their clearance slips, undermines its claim. Submission of these documents would have put to rest any doubt on the cause of the separation. Vouchers of payment do not suffice to prove petitioners retirement from Philex (SEE DOCTRINE). Since
the payment is for the reason of retrenchment, the petitioners
are dismissed for retrenchment as well. 3. Even as an action for retrenchment, the dismissal is still illegal. The requirements for retrenchment are (1) it is undertaken to prevent losses, which are not merely deminimis, but substantial, serious, actual, and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectivelyand in good faith by the employer, (2) the employer serves written notice both to the DOLE and employees, 30 days prior to the intended date of retrenchmentl and (3) the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to 1 month pay or at least month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. (4) employer must use fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, and that (5) the retrenchment must be undertaken in good faith. An independent auditor confirmed Philexs claim for financial losses and that the suffered and projected loss is substantial. HOWEVER, Philex failed to implement its retrenchment program in a just and proper manner. One of the criteria for the retrenchment of supervisory employees contravenes with the CBA then in force. The criteria evaluates ones disciplinary record oever a 3 year period regardless of the penalty involved, however the CBA stipulates that offenses punishable by reprimands and warnings of separation will be stricken-off the record every 1st February of each year. Since the Union did not ratify the MOA, the MOA cannot prevail over the CBA. Failure to use a reasonable and fair standard in the computation of the supervisors demerits points is not merely a procedural but a substantive defect which invalidates petitioners dismissal. If the CBA governs instead of the MOA, petitioners may not fall under those to be retrenched. FURTHERMORE, Philex did not explain why it retrenched the petitioners Biete who got the highest rating in his unit and Petitioner Mamayson even though he got the third highest rating in his unit. The criteria for retrenchment were arbitrarily applied. THe petitioners are thus entitled to reinstatement will full backwages, HOWEVER, the amounts received as net separation pay should be deducted from their back wages. 5. LASTLY, the Court held that the petitioners are not estopped to file a complaint for illegal dismissal despite signing a Deeds or Release and Quitclaims. Even though the petitioners are supervisors and not rank-and-fuled employees, it does not make them less susceptible to financial offers, faced as they were with the prospect of unemployment. Petitioners claim that economic necessity constrained them to accept Philexs monetary offer and sign the Deeds of Release and Quitclaims..