GR 168194; (December, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 168194 & 168603. December 13, 2005. San Miguel Corporation vs. Caroline C. Del Rosario.
FACTS
Respondent Caroline Del Rosario was hired by petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) on April 17, 2000, initially as a temporary reliever. Her status was later changed to probationary account specialist effective September 4, 2000. On March 9, 2001, SMC informed her that her probationary employment would be terminated on March 12, 2001, citing redundancy due to a business reorganization that created an excess of personnel. She was subsequently refused entry. Del Rosario filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging the redundancy was not genuine as SMC hired new employees after her termination.
The Labor Arbiter ruled Del Rosario was a regular employee, having worked beyond six months, and was illegally dismissed due to the absence of a bona fide redundancy. The NLRC modified this, declaring her a regular employee whose dismissal for redundancy was valid in substance but ineffectual due to SMC’s failure to serve the required one-month notice to her and the DOLE. The Court of Appeals’ First Division later reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal, while its Third Division upheld the NLRC’s “valid but ineffectual” ruling, leading to these consolidated petitions.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether Del Rosario attained regular employment status; and (2) whether her dismissal on the ground of redundancy was valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled for the respondent, affirming she was a regular employee illegally dismissed. On the first issue, the Court held Del Rosario became a regular employee by operation of law. Her employment commenced on April 17, 2000, and she was allowed to work beyond the maximum six-month probationary period without being informed of reasonable standards for regularization. Consequently, she was deemed a regular employee from day one of her probation.
On the validity of dismissal, the Court found SMC failed to prove a bona fide redundancy. Redundancy requires that the position itself is superfluous, and the employer must demonstrate fair and reasonable criteria in selecting employees for dismissal. SMC did not present clear evidence of such criteria. Crucially, the hiring of new employees for similar positions shortly after her termination negated the claim of excess manpower. The dismissal, therefore, lacked an authorized cause. The Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modification, awarding full backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and attorney’s fees, but deleting the awards for moral and exemplary damages for lack of basis.