Saturday, May 05, 2007 Notice of Business Closure By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
RESPONDENTS Gilbert Veruasa and Celestina Varuasa filed a complaint for illegal dismissal due to lack of notice of closure of business against petitioner Business Services of the Future Today Inc. (BSFTI). The petitioner contended that Gilbert was also a stockholder of BSFTI. Hence, there was no need to notify the Department of Labor and Employment (Dole) of the closure since as stockholder, he was presumed to have taken part in the decision to close business. Did this contention find merit?
Notice of closure to the Dole is mandatory. It allows the Dole to ascertain whether the closure and/or dismissals were done in good faith and not a pretext for evading obligations to the employees. This requirement protects the workers’ right to security of tenure. Failure to comply with this requirement taints the dismissal. This rule, however, admits of exceptions. If the employee consented to his retrenchment due to the closure or cessation of operation, the required prior notice to the Dole is not necessary as the employee thereby acknowledges the existence of a valid cause for termination of his employment.
Did respondent Gilbert Veruasa consent to his dismissal?
The evidence show that he did not. Altough only his correspondences with the petitioners suggest that he was a stockholder of BSFTI, there is no showing that he participated in the alleged stockholders’ meeting where the company’s closure was discussed. The self-serving Joint Affidavit of Allado and Dominguez attesting that Gilbert participated in the meeting discussing the closure is insufficient. The minutes of such meeting would have been better. Further, the SEC certification dated November 9, 1999, provided that BSFTI did not submit any communication signifying the termination of its corporate life nor its non-operation for 1998, giving rise to serious doubts that such meeting ever took place. Hence, there is no convincing evidence to show that Gilbert consented to his dismissal and for these reasons the petitioners should have submitted a written notice of bSFTI’’ closure to the DOLE (Business Services of the Future Today, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157133, January 30, 2007)
