GR 184735; (September, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 184735 ; September 17, 2009
MIRIAM B. ELLECCION VDA. DE LECCIONES, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NNA PHILIPPINES CO., INC. and MS. KIMI KIMURA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Miriam B. Elleccion Vda. de Lecciones was employed by respondent NNA Philippines Co., Inc., a research and translation service company, holding various positions including Administrator and Corporate Secretary. On October 17, 2002, she received a notice of termination on the ground of redundancy, following a corporate streamlining directive from the parent company in Japan. The respondent filed a report with the DOLE and offered separation pay, which the petitioner refused to accept, prompting her to file a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims, including overtime pay.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but awarded separation pay. The NLRC affirmed the validity of the dismissal and modified monetary awards. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied the petitioner’s petition, upholding the redundancy termination and denying the claim for overtime pay on the ground that she was a managerial employee. The Supreme Court initially denied the petitioner’s appeal via a Resolution dated December 8, 2008, leading to this motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the petitioner’s dismissal on the ground of redundancy was valid; and (2) whether she was entitled to overtime pay and other monetary claims.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration, affirming the validity of the dismissal and the denial of overtime pay. On the first issue, the Court ruled that redundancy, as a authorized cause for termination under Article 298 (formerly Article 283) of the Labor Code, is a management prerogative. The respondent sufficiently established redundancy through evidence of a corporate streamlining program from its parent company and the consequent abolition of the petitioner’s administrative position. The Court found no arbitrariness or bad faith, noting the respondent complied with procedural due process by notifying the DOLE and offering separation pay.
On the claim for overtime pay, the Court affirmed the CA’s ruling that the petitioner, being a managerial employee, is not entitled to such pay under Article 82 of the Labor Code and its implementing rules. The claim for moral damages and attorney’s fees was also denied for lack of basis, as the termination was effected for an authorized cause and without malice. The Court emphasized that the findings of the labor tribunals and the CA were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law and jurisprudence.