ACOSTA v. MATIERE SAS

 

MANUEL G. ACOSTA v. MATIERE SAS and PHILIPPE GOUVARY

[G.R. No. 232870. June 3, 2019.]

 

FACTS:

Matiere SAS is a French company engaged in the fabrication, supply, and delivery of unibridges and flyovers.

Matiere SAS, represented by its resident manager Philippe Gouvary, executed a Consulting Agreement with Acosta. Thereafter, Matiere SAS hired Acosta as its technical assistant.

On June 27, 2013, Matiere SAS sent Acosta a letter informing him that his employment will end July 31, 2013 due to the cessation of its delivery operations and the diminution of its activities.

In a June 26, 2013 letter, Matiere SAS informed DOLE that it would have to terminate the employment of its 5 workers, including Acosta, due to redundancy and the completion of delivery of supplies.

Acosta filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against Matiere SAS and Gouvary.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not Acosta was validly dismissed from employment on the ground of redundancy.

 

RULING:

No. Acosta was not validly dismissed from employment on the ground of redundancy.

The requisites of a valid redundancy program are: (1) written notice served on both the employees and DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; (2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and (4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and abolished.

Respondents complied with the first and second requisites. However, the third and fourth requisites are wanting. Here, respondents' only basis for declaring petitioner's position redundant was that his function, which was to monitor the delivery of supplies, became unnecessary upon completion of the shipments.

However, upon careful scrutiny, this Court finds that the Employment Agreement itself contradicts respondents' allegation. If his work pertains mainly to the delivery of supplies, it should have been specifically stated in his job description. There was, hence, no basis for respondents to consider his position irrelevant when the shipments had been completed.

Likewise, respondents failed to show that they used fair and reasonable criteria in determining what positions should be declared redundant. Acosta cannot be similarly situated with the other employees who worked directly with the delivery of supplies. On the other hand, Acosta’s duty is not limited to the monitoring of deliveries.

Accordingly, this Court declares petitioner to have been illegally dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIR v. DLSU

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, INC., [G.R. No. 196596. November 9, 2016.]   FACTS: In 2004, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued to DLSU Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 2794 authorizing its revenue officers to examine the latter's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for the period Fiscal Year Ending 2003 and Unverified Prior Years. BIR through a Formal Letter of Demand assessed DLSU the following deficiency taxes: (1) income tax on rental earnings from restaurants/canteens and bookstores operating within the campus; (2) VAT business income; and (3) documentary stamp tax (DST) on loans and lease contracts. The BIR demanded the payment of P17,303,001.12, inclusive of surcharge, interest and penalty for taxable years 2001, 2002 and 2003. DLSU protested the assessment. The Commissioner failed to act on the protest; thus, DLSU filed on August 3, 2005 a petition for review with the CTA Division. ...
Read more

DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. IAC

  DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. IAC   G.R. No. 73002 | December 29, 1986 FACTS The Director of Lands has brought this appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the IAC affirming a decision of the CFI of Isabela, which ordered registration in favor of Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc. of 5 parcels of land, acquired by it from Mariano and Acer Infiel , members of the Dumagat tribe .   The appealed judgment sums up the findings of the trial court: That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario is a corporation duly organized in accordance with the laws That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario can acquire real properties pursuant to the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation That the land subject of the Land Registration proceeding was ancestrally acquired by Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., on October 29, 1962, from Mariano Infiel and Acer Infiel, both members of ...
Read more

CIR v. PAGCOR

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner , vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, and PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, respondents   G.R. No. 177387, November 9, 2016   FACTS :   PAGCOR has operated under a legislative franchise granted by PD No. 1869, in its Charter, 4 whose Section 13 (2) provides that: (2) Income and other Taxes — (a) Franchise Holder: No tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local, shall be assessed and collected under this Franchise from the Corporation; nor shall any form of tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of the Corporation, except a Franchise Tax of five percent (5%) of the gross revenue or earnings derived by the Corporation from its operation under this Franchise.   Notwithstanding the aforesaid 5% franchise tax imposed, the BIR issued several assessments against PAGCOR of P13,710,145,629.67 for alleged defic...
Read more