Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    Cabaobas Et Al., vs. Pepsi Cola

    Uploaded by

    Marinelle Aycee Moleta Perral
    (1) Nine employees of Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc.'s Tanauan Plant were dismissed due to the company's retrenchment program caused by alleged business losses of 29 million pesos. However, the employees claimed the retrenchment was just a ploy to weaken their labor union. (2) The labor arbiter found the dismissal illegal but the NLRC disagreed and dismissed the complaints. The Court of Appeals also denied the petition. (3) The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was legal, as Pepsi had validly implemented the retrenchment program by proving the legal requirements for retrenchment through clear evidence and exercising the prerogative in good faith and

    Copyright:

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

    Cabaobas Et Al., vs. Pepsi Cola

    Uploaded by

    Marinelle Aycee Moleta Perral
    73 views2 pages
    (1) Nine employees of Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc.'s Tanauan Plant were dismissed due to the company's retrenchment program caused by alleged business losses of 29 million pesos. However, the employees claimed the retrenchment was just a ploy to weaken their labor union. (2) The labor arbiter found the dismissal illegal but the NLRC disagreed and dismissed the complaints. The Court of Appeals also denied the petition. (3) The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was legal, as Pepsi had validly implemented the retrenchment program by proving the legal requirements for retrenchment through clear evidence and exercising the prerogative in good faith and

    Original Title

    Cabaobas et al., vs. Pepsi Cola

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) Nine employees of Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc.'s Tanauan Plant were dismissed due to the company's retrenchment program caused by alleged business losses of 29 million pesos. However, the employees claimed the retrenchment was just a ploy to weaken their labor union. (2) The labor arbiter found the dismissal illegal but the NLRC disagreed and dismissed the complaints. The Court of Appeals also denied the petition. (3) The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was legal, as Pepsi had validly implemented the retrenchment program by proving the legal requirements for retrenchment through clear evidence and exercising the prerogative in good faith and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    73 views2 pages

    Cabaobas Et Al., vs. Pepsi Cola

    Uploaded by

    Marinelle Aycee Moleta Perral
    (1) Nine employees of Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc.'s Tanauan Plant were dismissed due to the company's retrenchment program caused by alleged business losses of 29 million pesos. However, the employees claimed the retrenchment was just a ploy to weaken their labor union. (2) The labor arbiter found the dismissal illegal but the NLRC disagreed and dismissed the complaints. The Court of Appeals also denied the petition. (3) The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was legal, as Pepsi had validly implemented the retrenchment program by proving the legal requirements for retrenchment through clear evidence and exercising the prerogative in good faith and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Cabaobas et al., vs.

    Pepsi Cola
    GR No.176908 March 25, 2015
    Facts:
    Cabaobas, Molina, Opinion, Lauron, De Paz, Carbo, Abarracoso, Gloria, and Cumpio, are
    permanent and regular employees of Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc.'s (PCPPI) Tanauan
    Plant. However, they were dismissed from their work pursuant to the company's wide
    retrenchment program cause by an alleged business loss worth 29 million pesos. They filed
    complaints for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. They alleged that PCPPI was not in fact facing
    serious financial losses and was just a ploy to weaken their labor union.
    Labor arbiter found that the dismissal was illegal and ordered the reinstatement and payment of
    full back wages to the petitioners. NLRC, however found that the retrenchment program was a
    valid exercise of management prerogatives and dismissed the complaints. On a petition for
    certiorari, CA likewise denied the petition. Aggrieved, petitioners came to SC.
    Issue:
    WON the dismissal of the petitioners were legal.
    Ruling:
    The petition has no merit.
    Essentially, the prerogative of an employer to retrench its employees must be exercised only as
    a last resort, considering that it will lead to the loss of the employees' livelihood. It is justified
    only when all other less drastic means have been tried and found insufficient or inadequate.
    Corollary thereto, the employer must prove the requirements for a valid retrenchment by clear
    and convincing evidence; otherwise, said ground for termination would be susceptible to abuse
    by scheming employers who might be merely feigning losses or reverses in their business
    ventures in order to ease out employees.
    REQUISITES:
    (1) That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses
    which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and
    real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good
    faith by the employer;
    (2) That the employer served written notice both to the employees and to the
    Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of
    retrenchment;
    (3) That the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to
    one (1) month pay or at least one-half (½) month pay for every year of service,
    whichever is higher;
    (4) That the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench employees in good faith
    for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees’ right
    to security of tenure; and
    (5) That the employer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be
    dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as status, efficiency,
    seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.
    In due regard of these requisites, the Court observes that Pepsi had validly implemented its
    retrenchment program.
    It is axiomatic that absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness, the
    findings of fact by the NLRC, especially when affirmed by the CA – as in this case – are binding
    and conclusive upon the Court. Thus, given that there lies no discretionary abuse with respect
    to the foregoing findings, the Court sees no reason to deviate from the same.
    Moreover, it must be underscored that Pepsi’s management exerted conscious efforts to
    incorporate employee participation during the implementation of its retrenchment program.
    Records indicate that Pepsi had initiated sit-downs with its employees to review the criteria on
    which the selection of who to be retrenched would be based.

    You might also like