RESPONDENT Roselle P. Almazar was employed by petitioner Abbott Laboratories (Philippines), Inc. (Abbott) as the national sales manager of its PediaSure Division while respondents Redel Ulysses M. Navarro and Manuel F. Torralba were regional sales managers of the same department.
Sometime in November 2012, Abbott decided to integrate into one sales unit the PediaSure Division and its Medical Nutrition Division, both under the Specialty Nutrition Group. The decision was made after a study revealed that both departments have similar business models and sales execution methods. As a result of the merger, respondents’ positions were declared redundant.
On Feb. 18, 2013, Abbott informed respondents of the latter’s termination effective March 22, 2013 due to redundancy. Thereafter, the company offered respondents the district sales manager positions, with a lower job rate and with duties and responsibilities different from that of a national or regional sales manager.
Respondents rejected the offer and, on May 10, 2013 signed their respective deeds of waiver, release, and quitclaim after receiving their respective separation pays.
On Sept. 20, 2013, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on the ground that Abbott allegedly did not observe the criteria of preference of status, efficiency, and seniority in determining who among its redundated employees are to be retained.
Does this complaint find merit?
Ruling: Yes.
The data presented in the study, by itself, does not satisfy the evidentiary requirement to prove that respondents’ positions should be redundated. As found by the NLRC and the CA, the graphical presentations in the study “are mere allegations and conclusions not supported by other evidence” that do not explain in detail why it considered respondents’ positions superfluous or unnecessary.
And while there may be basis for integrating the PediaSure Division and Medical Nutrition Division into one unit as demonstrated in the Study, there is no sufficient basis offered for retaining all the employees in one unit while dismissing those from the other. It may be that there are similarities in the functions and responsibilities attached to the positions in both divisions that resulted in superfluity, but determining who will occupy the newly-merged position is a different matter altogether.
This required, on the part of the employer, an evaluation of not just the performance of the divisions, but of the individual employees who may be affected by the redundancy program.
Evidence that this job appraisal was actually conducted is severely wanting in the records of this case. Rather, Abbott relied on general averments about logic and reason to justify its choice of division to retain. Absent substantial evidence tending to prove that the employees that would have been affected by the merger of the two departments were measured against specific criteria, the termination of the redundated employees cannot be sustained.
On the contrary, such terminations are products of caprice and whimsy, and do not constitute a valid exercise of management prerogative beyond the Court’s power of review. (Velasco Jr., J., SC 3rd Division, Abbott Laboratories (Philippines), Inc., et.al. vs. Manuel F. Torralba, et.al., G.R. No. 229746, October 11, 2017).