Cabaobas et al., vs. Pepsi Cola GR No.176908, March 25, 2015
CONCEPT: STARE DECESIS
FACTS: Respondent PCPPI is
a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing, bottling and distribution
of soft drink products, which operates plants all over the country, one of
which is the Tanauan Plant in Tanauan, Leyte.
In 1999,
PCPPI's Tanauan Plant allegedly incurred business losses in the total amount of
P29,167,390.To avert further losses, PCPPI implemented a company-wide
retrenchment program denominated as Corporate-wide Rightsizing Program (CRP) from
1999 to 2000, and retrenched 47 employees of its Tanauan Plant on July 31,
1999.
On Sept 24, 1999, 27 of said employees, Molon, et al., filed complaints for illegal dismissal before the NLRC "Molon, et al. v. Pepsi-Cola Products, Philippines, Inc." (FIRST BATCH)
On Jan
15, 2000, petitioners, who are permanent and regular employees, was informed of
the cessation of their employment on February 15, 2000, pursuant to PCPPI's
CRP. Petitioners then filed their respective complaints for illegal dismissal
before the NLRC RAB entitled "Kempis, et al. v. Pepsi-Cola
Products, Philippines, Inc." (SECOND BATCH)
Petitioners
alleged that PCPPI was not facing serious financial losses because after their
termination. They also alleged that PCPPI's CRP was just designed to prevent
their union, Leyte Pepsi-Cola Employees Union-Associated Labor Union (LEPCEU-ALU),
from becoming the certified bargaining agent of PCPPI's rank-and-file
employees.
In its
Position Paper, PCPPI countered that petitioners were dismissed pursuant to its
CRP to save the company from total bankruptcy and collapse; thus, it sent
notices of termination to them and to the Department of Labor and Employment.
In support of its argument that its CRP is a valid exercise of management
prerogative, PCPPI submitted audited financial statements showing that it
suffered financial reverses in 1998 in the total amount of P700,000,000,
P27,000,000 of which was allegedly incurred in the Tanauan Plant in 1999.
On
December 15, 2000, Labor Arbiter Vito C. Bose rendered a Decision finding
the dismissal of petitioners as illegal and ordered reinstatement. PCPPI
appealed to the NLRC of Tacloban City.
On
September 11, 2002, the NLRC rendered a Consolidated Decision declaring PCPPI
not guilty of union busting/unfair labor practice and dismissing LEPCEU-ALU's
Notice of Strike. It also declared the retrenchment program of Pepsi Cola
Products Phils., Inc. pursuant to its CRP, a valid exercise of management
prerogatives. CA Afirmed.
BUT during the pendency of the
petition, this Court rendered a Decision dated February 18, 2013 in the related
case of Pepsi-Cola
Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon pertaining to the dismissal of the complaints for
illegal dismissal filed by Molon, et al. On the issue of whether
the retrenchment of the petitioners' former co-employees was in accord with
law, the Court ruled that PCPPI had
validly implemented its retrenchment program. (case from the first batch of
employees)
ISSUE: The legality of their dismissal
pursuant to PCPPI's retrenchment program.
RULING: The petition has no merit.
In view of the Court's ruling in Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon, PCPPI contends that the petition for review on certiorari should be denied and the CA decision should be affirmed under the principle of stare decisis. In that case, the Court observes that Pepsi had validly implemented its retrenchment program and complied with all the requirements.
The Court sustains PCPPI's contention. The principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle things which are established) is well entrenched in Article 8 of the New Civil Code which states that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.
Guided by the jurisprudence on stare decisis, the remaining question is whether the factual circumstances of this present case are substantially the same as the Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon case.
The Court rules in the affirmative.
There is no dispute that the issues, subject matters and causes of action between the parties in Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon and the present case are identical, namely, the validity of PCPPI's retrenchment program, and the legality of its employees' termination. The only difference between the two cases is the date of the employees' termination, i.e., Molon, et al. belong to the first batch of employees retrenched on July 31, 1999, while petitioners belong to the second batch retrenched on February 15, 2000. That the validity of the same PCPPI retrenchment program had already been passed upon and, thereafter, sustained in the related case of Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon, albeit involving different parties, impels the Court to accord a similar disposition and uphold the legality of same program.
An abandonment of the ruling in Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Molon on the same issue of the validity of PCPPI's retrenchment program must be based only on strong and compelling reasons. After a careful review of the records, the Court finds no such reasons were shown to obtain in this case.
Even upon evaluation of petitioners' arguments on its supposed merits, the Court still finds no reason to disturb the CA ruling that affirmed the NLRC. At any rate, the Court finds that the September 11, 2002 NLRC Decision has exhaustively discussed PCPPI's compliance with the requirement that for a retrenchment to be valid, such must be reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real.
After all, the settled rule in quasi-judicial proceedings is that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in determining the legality of an employer's dismissal of an employee, and not even a preponderance of evidence is necessary, as substantial evidence is considered sufficient. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.
On petitioners' contention that the true motive of the retrenchment program was to prevent their union, LEPCEU-ALU, from becoming the certified bargaining agent of all the rank-and-file employees of PCPPI, such issue of union-busting was duly resolved by the NLRC and absent any perceived threat to LEPCEU-ALU's existence or a violation of respondents' right to self-organization — as demonstrated by the foregoing actuations — Pepsi cannot be said to have committed union busting or ULP in this case.