Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 142 views

    Cajucom Digest

    Uploaded by

    Karen Ronquillo
    Petitioner was employed as Vice-President for Legal Affairs by respondents TPI Philippines Cement Corporation and TPI Philippines Vinyl Corporation. Due to economic slowdown, the companies implemented cost-cutting measures that resulted in petitioner's retrenchment. While the court found that the companies proved financial losses to justify retrenchment, they failed to provide the required one-month notice to petitioner and the Department of Labor and Employment. Therefore, the court ruled that petitioner was entitled to half a month's pay of P160,000 for each year of his four years of service, as he was validly retrenched but the respondents did not comply with the notice requirement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cajucom Digest

    Uploaded by

    Karen Ronquillo
    142 views1 page
    Petitioner was employed as Vice-President for Legal Affairs by respondents TPI Philippines Cement Corporation and TPI Philippines Vinyl Corporation. Due to economic slowdown, the companies implemented cost-cutting measures that resulted in petitioner's retrenchment. While the court found that the companies proved financial losses to justify retrenchment, they failed to provide the required one-month notice to petitioner and the Department of Labor and Employment. Therefore, the court ruled that petitioner was entitled to half a month's pay of P160,000 for each year of his four years of service, as he was validly retrenched but the respondents did not comply with the notice requirement.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner was employed as Vice-President for Legal Affairs by respondents TPI Philippines Cement Corporation and TPI Philippines Vinyl Corporation. Due to economic slowdown, the companies implemented cost-cutting measures that resulted in petitioner's retrenchment. While the court found that the companies proved financial losses to justify retrenchment, they failed to provide the required one-month notice to petitioner and the Department of Labor and Employment. Therefore, the court ruled that petitioner was entitled to half a month's pay of P160,000 for each year of his four years of service, as he was validly retrenched but the respondents did not comply with the notice requirement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    142 views1 page

    Cajucom Digest

    Uploaded by

    Karen Ronquillo
    Petitioner was employed as Vice-President for Legal Affairs by respondents TPI Philippines Cement Corporation and TPI Philippines Vinyl Corporation. Due to economic slowdown, the companies implemented cost-cutting measures that resulted in petitioner's retrenchment. While the court found that the companies proved financial losses to justify retrenchment, they failed to provide the required one-month notice to petitioner and the Department of Labor and Employment. Therefore, the court ruled that petitioner was entitled to half a month's pay of P160,000 for each year of his four years of service, as he was validly retrenched but the respondents did not comply with the notice requirement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BENEDICTO A. CAJUCOM VII, petitioner, vs.

    TPI PHILIPPINES CEMENT CORPORATION, TPI


    PHILIPPINES VINYL CORPORATION, AND THUN TRITASAVIT, respondents.

    FACTS:

    TPI Philippines Cement Corporation (TP Cement) and TPI Philippines Vinyl Corporation (TP Vinyl), respondents
    employed Atty. Benedicto A. Cajucom VII, petitioner, as Vice-President for Legal Affairs.

    As a result of the economic slowdown, TP Cement, having no viable projects, dissolved its operations. With respect to TP
    Vinyl, it shifted its business from production to marketing and trading of Thai Petrochemical products. Thus, respondents
    implemented cost-cutting measures resulting in the retrenchment or termination from the service of their employees,
    including petitioner.

    On December 3, 1998, respondents sent petitioner a notice terminating his services effective December 30, 1998.
    Simultaneously, respondents, on the same day, filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) an
    Establishment Termination Report of petitioners retrenchment from the service. On January 12, 1999, petitioner filed
    with the Office of the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents.

    On March 31, 1999, the Labor Arbiter ruled that respondents failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that their alleged
    losses are substantial and imminent and concluded that petitioner was illegally dismissed from employment

    Upon appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters Decision. Both parties filed a motion for reconsideration but it was
    denied by the NLRC.

    Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in
    finding that the termination of petitioners employment is justified.

    The CA then rendered the assailed Decision affirming with modification the NLRCs Decision. The CA denied petitioners
    motion for reconsideration. Hence, this appeal.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the respondents are illegally dismissed.

    RULING:

    Retrenchment, under Article 283 of the Labor Code, as amended, is recognized as an authorized cause for the dismissal of
    an employee from the service.

    To be valid, three requisites must concur, as provided in Article 283 of the Labor Code, as amended, namely: (1)
    The retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and the same is proven; (2) Written notice to the employees and
    to the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date thereof; and (3) Payment of separation
    pay equivalent to one month pay or at least month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.

    The SC ruled that CA is correct in finding that respondents suffered from financial losses relying on the audited
    reports[12] prepared by SGV & Co. Petitioner insists that actual, not probable losses, justify retrenchment. Article
    283 (quoted earlier) entails, among others, only a situation where there is retrenchment to prevent
    losses.[14] The phrase to prevent losses means that retrenchment or termination from the service of some employees is
    authorized to be undertaken by the employer sometime before the losses anticipated are actually sustained or
    realized.[15] Evidently, actual losses need not set in prior to retrenchment.

    Also, following the provision of Article 283, the employer shall serve notice of retrenchment to prevent losses on the
    worker and the DOLE at least one month before the intended date thereof. However, respondents failed to comply with
    the one-month notice requirement.

    Considering that petitioner was separated from the service due to an authorized cause but that respondents did not
    comply with the one-month notice requirement, petitioner is entitled to an award of separation pay equivalent to
    one-half (1/2) months pay for every year of service (with a fraction of at least six (6) months considered one (1)
    whole year). Since he had been employed for four (4) years, or from June 1, 1995 to December 30, 1998, with a monthly
    salary of P80,000.00, he should be paid P160,000.00 as separation pay.

    You might also like