G.R. No. 220647, December 10, 2019
NOLI D. APARICIO AND RENAN CLARITO, PETITIONERS, VS. MANILA BROADCASTING COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners Noli Aparicio and Renan Clarito, along with others, were radio technicians employed by respondent Manila Broadcasting Company (MBC). On February 28, 2002, they received a notice of termination dated February 22, 2002, effective March 31, 2002, with separation pay. MBC cited a company reorganization and downsizing program called “Hating Kapatid,” implemented due to review showing several losing stations. Specifically, FFES Bacolod, a relay station of DZRH where petitioners Aparicio and Clarito were assigned, was shut down as its operation was deemed unnecessary since DZRH could be heard in Bacolod via FFES Iloilo. Petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring their dismissal illegal due to lack of evidence of serious business losses and failure to use fair criteria for retrenchment, awarding backwages and separation pay. The NLRC reversed, upholding the dismissal as a valid exercise of management prerogative due to redundancy. The Court of Appeals partially granted the petition, upholding the dismissal of Aparicio and Clarito on the ground of redundancy due to the abolition of FFES Bacolod, but finding the dismissal of their co-petitioners illegal due to failure to consider preferred status, efficiency, and seniority. Only petitioners Aparicio and Clarito appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the validity of the dismissal of petitioners Noli Aparicio and Renan Clarito on the ground of redundancy.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the termination of petitioners Aparicio and Clarito was a valid dismissal due to redundancy. The “Hating Kapatid” program was a legitimate business decision to make each station independent and economically viable. The closure of FFES Bacolod, where petitioners were assigned, rendered their positions redundant. The employer has the management prerogative to determine the necessity of abolishing a position due to redundancy, and courts will not interfere unless the action is arbitrary or malicious. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the Court of Appeals’ factual findings on the timeliness of MBC’s appeal and the validity of the redundancy program. The redundancy was a result of a bona fide reorganization, and the law does not require actual financial losses before terminating an employee on this ground.