G.R. No. 202388 April 10, 2019
ELPIDIO T. QUE, Petitioner, vs. ASIA BREWERY, INC. AND/OR MICHAEL G. TAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Elpidio T. Que was the Regional Sales Manager (RSM) for Asia Brewery, Inc.’s North Central Luzon Region. In 2004, management split the region into two parts to spur growth, with Que heading one part. In May 2005, a company vice president evaluated the split and found it did not achieve gains, recommending a reversion to the old single-RSM structure. This re-merger rendered Que’s position redundant. The company subsequently informed Que of the redundancy and offered a separation package.
Que contested his termination, claiming he was constructively dismissed. He alleged he was pressured to resign, denied access to company premises and resources like his service vehicle and fuel card, and was effectively barred from performing his duties even before receiving the formal termination letter dated June 20, 2005. Asia Brewery countered that the redundancy was a legitimate business decision and that Que had initially engaged in negotiations for his separation package, as evidenced by a letter he wrote on May 18, 2005, but later refused to cooperate and report to the head office as instructed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the validity of Que’s dismissal on the ground of redundancy and in ruling that he was not constructively dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s ruling. The legal logic centered on the prerogative of management to implement a bona fide redundancy program and the absence of proof of constructive dismissal. Redundancy exists when a position is rendered superfluous by a number of factors, such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business, or streamlining of operations to promote efficiency. The employer bears the burden of proving that the redundancy is genuine. In this case, Asia Brewery adequately demonstrated this through the business evaluation recommending the re-merger of the two sales regions to improve operational focus and efficiency, which logically abolished one RSM position.
The Court found no constructive dismissal, which occurs when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer renders the employee’s continued position intolerable, forcing resignation. The evidence, particularly Que’s own May 18, 2005 letter discussing separation terms, indicated he was initially amenable to the redundancy but later balked at the offered package. The company’s acts of recalling him to the head office and restricting his access to field offices after his position was declared redundant were consequential to the ongoing termination process and his refusal to comply with directives, not malicious acts designed to force his resignation. Absent proof of arbitrariness or bad faith in declaring the redundancy, the dismissal was deemed valid.