Cheniver Deco Print Technics Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Cheniver Deco Print Technics Corporation (Petitioner) informed its employees of its decision to transfer its printing business from Makati to Sto. Tomas, Batangas, due to the expiration of its lease contract and pressure from local authorities regarding alleged hazards. Petitioner set a deadline for employees to indicate their willingness to transfer, otherwise, replacements would be hired. Subsequently, the union initially indicated its members were unwilling to transfer but later informed petitioner that the employees decided to continue working. However, none of the employees reported for work at the new site. Some employees opted for financial assistance instead of transferring. The private respondents, members of the union and former employees, filed a complaint against petitioner for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, and various monetary claims. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter declared the transfer valid and absolved petitioner of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal charges. However, petitioner was directed to pay private respondents their separation pay, other money claims, and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision with modification, deleting the award of attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari, seeking to annul the NLRC resolutions, arguing that the transfer was not a closure or retrenchment, thus separation pay should not be awarded, and that the employees resigned. Petitioner also questioned the award of other money claims due to alleged lack of computation.
Issue(s)
Whether the relocation of petitioner's business constitutes a closure or cessation of operation entitling employees to separation pay. Whether the private respondents resigned from their employment. Whether the award of other money claims to private respondents was proper. Whether petitioner engaged in forum shopping.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the assailed resolutions of the NLRC are affirmed. Petitioner is ordered to pay private respondents their separation pay and other monetary claims.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of separation pay due to relocation: The Court held that the relocation of petitioner's plant to Batangas amounts to a cessation of its business operations in Makati. Citing Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing & Redrying Corp. vs. NLRC, the Court clarified that "closure or cessation of operation of an establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or reverses" under Article 283 of the Labor Code includes both complete cessation and cessation of part of a company's business. Even though the transfer was due to reasons beyond petitioner's control, such as lease expiration, the employer must still provide relief in the form of severance pay, as established in E. Razon, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment. Therefore, petitioner must pay its employees termination pay equivalent to at least one month's pay or one-half month's pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, as the closure was not due to serious business losses. On the issue of resignation: The Court found petitioner's contention that private respondents resigned to be unconvincing. The Court agreed with the NLRC's observation that the transfer to a new, less accessible work site resulted in the employees' separation from service, which was not voluntary and thus not a resignation. Resignation requires the intention to relinquish the office and an act of relinquishment, which is inconsistent with filing a complaint for illegal dismissal. The employees' subsequent filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal negates any claim of voluntary resignation. On the issue of other money claims: The Court found petitioner's assertion that the claims were already paid to be incorrect. The Solicitor General correctly pointed out that the order cited by petitioner pertained to the enforcement of a Wage Order mandating a P2.00 wage increase, which is distinct from the monetary benefits being claimed by the private respondents. Therefore, the NLRC cannot be faulted for awarding these claims. On the issue of forum shopping: The Court dismissed petitioner's allegation of forum shopping. The Solicitor General noted that the claims in the present case (underpayment of wages, legal holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay) were distinct from the issues in other cases filed by some employees, which involved diminution of salary, reinstatement, or were dismissed for failure to prosecute. Since the causes of action, subject matter, and issues were not identical, there was no basis for the forum shopping charge.
Main Doctrine
Relocation of a business undertaking, even if necessitated by factors beyond the employer's control like lease expiration or local government action, constitutes a cessation of operation in the original site, entitling employees to separation pay under Article 283 of the Labor Code, unless the closure is due to serious business losses. Employees who do not report to the new site are not deemed to have resigned if the transfer resulted in their untimely separation from the service not of their own liking.