G.R. No. 235873 January 21, 2019
ENRIQUE MARCO G. YULO, Petitioner, vs. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Enrique Marco G. Yulo was employed by respondent Concentrix Daksh Services Philippines, Inc. as a Customer Care Specialist. On February 17, 2015, he received a letter stating that due to business exigencies from the client, Amazon.com, Inc., he would be placed in a redeployment pool. The letter warned that if he was not reassigned to a new account by March 22, 2015, he would be terminated on the ground of redundancy. Petitioner was not redeployed and was subsequently dismissed.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, a decision affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC found that while respondent complied with the procedural notice requirements, it failed to prove good faith and the fair and reasonable criteria used in selecting petitioner for redundancy. The NLRC also noted the non-payment of separation pay. Respondent elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the NLRC, ruling the dismissal was legal due to compliance with procedural requirements and the existence of a bona fide redundancy program.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that petitioner was legally dismissed on the ground of redundancy.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the NLRC decision, declaring the dismissal illegal. The Court held that for a valid redundancy termination, the employer must prove: (a) good faith in abolishing the redundant position; and (b) fair and reasonable criteria in selecting the employee to be dismissed. The burden of proof rests on the employer.
The Court found respondent failed to discharge this burden. The “Business Case” document presented to justify the headcount reduction pertained to a different effective date (January 5, 2015) and was not shown to have been approved or implemented. More critically, respondent failed to substantiate the criteria used for selection. While it claimed petitioner was chosen due to low performance and a high negative response rate, it did not present comparative data or evidence showing how petitioner was ranked against other employees using these criteria. The absence of such proof rendered the selection process arbitrary. Consequently, the dismissal, though purportedly for redundancy, was not executed in good faith with a fair and reasonable standard, making it illegal. The order for reinstatement with backwages and other monetary awards was reinstated.