RESPONDENTS Erika Marie R. De Guzman was employed as ad taker/account executive while Edna Quirante as human resource development supervisor by petitioner Philippine Journalists Inc. (PJI).
They filed separate letters informing petitioner of their desire to avail of the company’s optional retirement plan as embodied in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Because of PJI’s refusal, they filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and money claims, non-payment of optional retirement benefits and service incentive leave against PJI and its corporate officers.
In defense, petitioners alleged that PJI was suffering losses at the time respondents applied for optional retirement and in fact, the company implemented a retrenchment program. They also averred that there was no express company policy on optional retirement but with respect to those employees who were granted optional retirement benefits in the past, these were covered by an existing approved optional retirement program.
The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled in respondents’ favor on the ground that PJI’s grant of optional retirement benefits to its managerial employees and executive staff had ripened into a company practice.
Did the CA err?
Ruling: No.
The Court finds the CA pronouncement tenable, not only because its factual findings must be upheld as this Court is not a trier of facts, but that, given the factual milieu, it appears that petitioners’ denial of respondents’ application for optional retirement was unfair as it granted the same privilege to others previously. Indeed, PJI appears to discriminate against its core employees, while it favors those in the upper tier; it had been found guilty of illegal dismissal based on an illegal retrenchment scheme, while upper management continued to enjoy its perks and privileges and refused to tighten its belt in this respect. While respondents are not considered as belonging to the rank-and-file, they do not belong to the upper echelon of PJI management either: De Guzman was executive security to the chairman, while Quirante was human resource supervisor—not exactly juicy positions that find immediate favor with management.
Furthermore, the CA’s ruling is correct in light of PJI’s conduct of pursuing a scheme to reduce its personnel by any means necessary, which is both unfair and prejudicial to the interests of labor.
Take for example respondents’ case. Operating under the honest belief that they could avail of an optional retirement scheme that PJI allowed with respect to other employees in the past, respondents tendered their respective resignation letters on the sole ground that they were availing of the company’s optional retirement package. Instead of clarifying the matter with respondents, petitioners treated the latters’ actions with a lack of understanding and sympathy. If petitioners believed that respondents were not entitled to avail of the optional retirement scheme which respondents in good faith thought was available to them, and which was obviously the sole reason for tendering their resignations, then petitioners should have at least put their respective resignations on hold pending clarification of the issues. Instead, petitioners immediately took a hostile stance, and quickly grabbed the opportunity to declare respondents separated from PJI by voluntary resignation with its concomitant effects such as non-payment of benefits, separation pay, etc. They did not take time to explain, if so, that the optional retirement program was no longer in effect and give respondents the opportunity to reconsider their actions. This is tantamount to bad faith, considering the factual milieu and petitioners’ conduct, where they have consistently shown an interest in dismissing their employees, yet keeping for themselves their corporate bonuses, perks and privileges.
The grant of optional retirement benefits to two management employees in the past was voluntary, deliberate and done with sufficient regularity as would indicate that this had become a company practice within PJI, which petitioners now refuse to apply in the case of respondents, on the pretext that the company was losing money at that time. But PJI was not incurring losses, and was in fact exhibiting conduct inconsistent with the claim. What is clear is that it engaged in unfair labor activities and took an anti-labor stance at the expense of its employees, including respondents.
PJI has shown that its employees’ interests take a backseat to the perks and prerogatives of management. This cannot be countenanced. (Philippine Journalists Inc. et al. vs. Erika Marie R. De Guzman et al. G.R. 208027, April 1, 2019).