G.R. No. 117459 October 17, 1997
MOISES B. PANLILIO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC FIRST DIVISION) AND FINDSTAFF PLACEMENT SERVICES, INC. AND OMAN SHERATON HOTEL, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Moises B. Panlilio was recruited by private respondent Findstaff Placement Services (FPS) for employment as Recreational Manager at the Sheraton Hotel in Oman under a two-year contract with a monthly salary of $1,100, starting October 1991. In March 1992, his services were terminated on the ground of redundancy. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The POEA ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed, finding the alleged redundancy not adequately proven. FPS appealed to the NLRC. In its initial decision, the NLRC affirmed the POEA’s decision and dismissed the appeal, despite FPS submitting new affidavits from officers of the Sheraton Hotel to substantiate the redundancy. FPS filed a motion for reconsideration. The NLRC then reversed its original ruling and upheld the validity of the dismissal on the ground of redundancy, prompting this petition. Petitioner claims the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in reversing its original ruling based on affidavits it had earlier deemed self-serving and of no evidentiary value.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) gravely abused its discretion in reversing its original decision and upholding the dismissal of petitioner on the ground of redundancy based on the submitted affidavits and documents.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the challenged NLRC resolution, and REINSTATED the decision of the POEA. The Court held that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion. The affidavits and documents submitted by FPS failed to constitute substantial evidence to justify dismissal on the ground of redundancy. They did not prove the superfluity of petitioner’s position, nor did they present necessary factors confirming redundancy, such as overhiring, decreased volume of business, or dropping of a product line. The Court agreed with the POEA’s observation that evidence such as a new staffing pattern, feasibility studies, or management approval of restructuring was lacking. While the NLRC correctly admitted the affidavits on appeal despite technical rules of evidence not being binding in labor cases, the contents of these affidavits were insufficient. They merely denied discrimination and did not adequately explain why the position became redundant. Furthermore, FPS failed to show that fair and reasonable criteria (e.g., preferred status, efficiency, seniority) were used in implementing the redundancy program. The NLRC’s findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence.