GR 103575; (April, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 103575 . April 5, 1993.
BUSINESSDAY INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND SERVICES, INC., AND RAUL LOCSIN, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NEMESIO MOYA, ALFREDO AMANTE, EDWIN BERSAMINA, SAMUEL CUELA, ROMEO DELA CRUZ, MANUEL DE JESUS, SEVERINO DELA CRUZ, DANILO ESPIRITU, ANGEL FLORES, DANILO FRANCISCO, FLORENCIO GLORIOSO, GERARDO MANUEL, ARMANDO MENDOZA, PEDRO MORELOS, ALEXON ORBETA, ROMEO PEREZ, ALFREDO SABANDO, NESTOR SANTOS, ALFREDO SEPTRIMO, OSCAR SEVILLA, EDUARDO SIOSON, REYMUNDO TIONGCO, TERESITA REYES, CARMENCITA CARPIO, GENARO NABUTAS, DANILO NAMPLATA, AND ROLANDO GAMIT, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Businessday Information Systems and Services Inc. (BSSI) was engaged in the manufacture and sale of computer forms. Due to financial reverses, its creditors took possession of its assets. As a retrenchment measure, some plant employees, the private respondents, were laid off on May 16, 1988, after prior notice, and were paid separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service. They signed individual releases and quitclaims. BSSI retained some employees to attempt rehabilitation as a trading company. However, barely two and a half months later, on July 31, 1988, these remaining employees were discharged due to the company’s decision to cease operations altogether. This second batch received separation pay equivalent to a full month’s salary for every year of service plus a mid-year bonus. A third batch was terminated on February 28, 1989, receiving the same full month’s pay per year of service. Protesting the discrimination, the 27 private respondents filed complaints against BSSI and its president/manager, Raul Locsin. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the complainants, ordering payment of separation pay differentials and a mid-year bonus. The NLRC affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
1. Whether the employer unlawfully discriminated against the first batch of terminated employees by paying them lesser separation benefits than subsequent batches.
2. Whether corporate officer Raul Locsin can be held personally and solidarily liable for the money claims.
3. Whether the private respondents are entitled to a mid-year bonus.
RULING
1. Yes. The employer unlawfully discriminated against the private respondents. While the law recognizes the employer’s right to retrench or close due to losses, it may not pay separation benefits unequally. The NLRC found that the business climate did not improve between the termination dates, and the close intervals between batches indicated no likely business improvement. Granting that the first termination was due to retrenchment and the later ones due to closure, the law requires granting the same amount of separation benefits in such cases. The employer’s justification that higher benefits for later batches were an expression of gratitude and benevolence was not plausible, as there were workers in the first batch with more years of service and possibly greater efficiency who received less. Management prerogatives are not absolute and are subject to legal limits and principles of fair play and justice. The discrimination was impermissible.
2. No. A corporate officer is not personally liable for the money claims of discharged corporate employees unless he acted with evident malice and bad faith. There was no evidence that Raul Locsin acted in bad faith or with malice in carrying out the retrenchment and closure. Therefore, he cannot be held personally and solidarily liable.
3. No. The grant of a bonus is a prerogative, not an obligation, of the employer, entirely dependent on the employer’s financial capability. The company’s business was no longer profitable, and the private respondents did not work up to the middle of the year, having been discharged in May 1988. Requiring payment of a mid-year bonus would penalize the company for its generosity to those who remained longer. The award of a mid-year bonus was deleted.
The NLRC resolution ordering the payment of separation pay differentials was AFFIRMED. The award of a mid-year bonus was DELETED. Petitioner Raul Locsin was ABSOLVED from personal liability.