GR 213299; (April, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 213299. April 19, 2016.
PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner PNCC Skyway Corporation (PSC) was incorporated as a subsidiary of Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) to operate and maintain the South Metro Manila Skyway. On July 18, 2007, an Amended Supplemental Toll Operation Agreement (ASTOA) was executed, transferring the operation and management of the Skyway from PSC to Skyway O & M Corporation (SOMCO), with a transition period until December 31, 2007. On December 28, 2007, PSC issued termination letters to its employees, stating their dismissal would be effective January 31, 2008, and filed a notice of closure with the DOLE. PSC offered a separation package. The PSC Employees Union filed a Notice of Strike. The DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction. The DOLE Secretary dismissed charges of unfair labor practice but ordered PSC to pay each terminated employee P30,000.00 as indemnity for failure to comply with the 30-day notice requirement under Article 298 (formerly Article 283) of the Labor Code. The DOLE Secretary found that while PSC stated the dismissal was effective January 31, 2008, it had actually ceased operations and turned over the Skyway to SOMCO on December 31, 2007, thus fixing a later termination date only to appear compliant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the DOLE Secretary’s ruling.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the DOLE Secretary’s ruling that PSC failed to comply with the 30-day notice requirement under Article 298 (formerly Article 283) of the Labor Code, as amended.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that PSC complied with the 30-day notice requirement. The notice of termination issued on December 28, 2007, specified January 31, 2008, as the effective date of termination, which was more than 30 days from the date the ASTOA was signed on July 18, 2007, and from the date PSC issued the termination letters. The Court found that PSC’s cessation of operations was a direct result of the ASTOA, which was beyond its control and constituted a bona fide closure of business. The Court distinguished this case from Smart Communications, Inc. v. Astorga, noting that here, the closure was due to the termination of PSC’s contract under the ASTOA, a supervening event that rendered the continued employment of the employees impossible. The Court ruled that PSC validly exercised its management prerogative to close the business and complied with procedural due process by serving the written notices. Therefore, PSC is not liable to pay indemnity or nominal damages to the terminated employees. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals were reversed and set aside.