11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

SO ORDERED.

Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr. and Brion, JJ.,

concur.

Petition partially granted, judgment modified.

Notes.—The proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and

the National Labor Relations Commission are non-litigious
in nature. (Genuino Ice Company, Inc. vs. Magpantay, 493
SCRA 195 [2006])
Attorney’s fees are not to be awarded every time a party
wins a suit. (Asian Construction and Development
Corporation vs. COMFAC Corporation, 504 SCRA 519
[2006])

——o0o——

G.R. No. 166703.  April 14, 2008.*

AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE, INC., petitioner, vs. ELY

GARCIA and MA. TERESA BALLA, respondents.

Labor Law; Labor Relations; Employer-Employee

Relationships; In balancing the interest between labor and capital,
the prudent recourse in termination cases is to safeguard the
prized security of tenure of employees and to require employers to
present the best evidence obtainable, especially so because in most
cases, the documents or proof needed to resolve the validity of the
termination, are in the possession of the employers.—In balancing
the interest between labor and capital, the prudent recourse in
termination cases is to safeguard the prized security of tenure of
employees and to require employers to present the best evidence
obtainable, especially so because in most cases, the documents or
proof needed to resolve the validity of the termination, are in the
possession of employers. A contrary ruling would encourage
employers to utilize redundancy as
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

 _______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

255

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 255

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

a means of dismissing employees when no valid grounds for

termination are shown by simply invoking a feigned or
unsubstantiated redundancy program.
Same; Same; Retrenchment; Three Basic Requisites for a
Valid Retrenchment to Exist.—There are three basic requisites for
a valid retrenchment to exist, to wit: (a) the retrenchment is
necessary to prevent losses and such losses are proven; (b) written
notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least one (1) month
prior to the intended date of retrenchment; and (c) payment of
separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-
half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
To justify retrenchment, the employer must prove serious
business losses. Indeed, not all business losses suffered by the
employer would justify retrenchment under Article 283 of the
Labor Code. The “loss” referred to in Article 283 cannot be just
any kind or amount of loss; otherwise, a company could easily
feign excuses to suit its whims and prejudices or to rid itself of
unwanted employees.
Jurisdictions; Certiorari; The rule is settled that the original
and exclusive jurisdiction of this Court to review a decision of
respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) (or
Executive Labor Arbiter as in this case) in a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 does not normally include an inquiry into the
correctness of its evaluation of the evidence; Errors of judgment, as
distinguished from errors of jurisdiction, are not within the
province of a special civil action for certiorari, which is merely
confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.—The
extent of judicial review by certiorari of decisions or resolutions of
the NLRC, as exercised previously by the Supreme Court and now
by the Court of Appeals, is described in Zarate, Jr. v. Olegario,
263 SCRA 1 (1996) thus—The rule is settled that the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of this Court to review a decision of
respondent NLRC (or Executive Labor Arbiter as in this case) in a
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not normally include

an inquiry into the correctness of its evaluation of the
evidence. Errors of judgment, as distinguished from errors
of jurisdiction, are not within the province of a special
civil action for certiorari, which is merely confined to
issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. It is thus
incumbent upon petitioner to satisfactorily establish that
respondent Commission or executive labor arbiter acted capri-

256

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

ciously and whimsically in total disregard of evidence material to

or even decisive of the controversy, in order that the
extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie. By grave abuse of
discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must be
shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or
despotically. For certiorari to lie, there must be capricious,
arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, the very antithesis of
the judicial prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil
law and common law traditions. (Italics supplied.)
Same; Same; In Garcia v. National Labor Relations
Commission (450 SCRA 535 [2005]), we further defined the scope
of the Court of Appeals’ power to review the evidence when the
decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is
brought before it via a petition for certiorari.—In Garcia v.
National Labor Relations Commission, 450 SCRA 535 (2005), we
further defined the scope of the Court of Appeals’ power to review
the evidence when the decision of the NLRC is brought before it
via a petition for certiorari.
Same; Same; Absent exceptional circumstances, the general
rule applies and the Court of Appeals is limited only to
ascertaining whether the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) acted capriciously and whimsically in total disregard of
evidence material to or decisive of the controversy so as to oust the
latter of jurisdiction.—None of the foregoing circumstances exists
in this case that would justify the Court of Appeals, in a petition
for certiorari, to look into and re-weigh the evidence on record to
determine whether the NLRC committed errors of judgment as
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

regards thereto. Absent exceptional circumstances, the general

rule applies and the Court of Appeals is limited only to
ascertaining whether the NLRC acted capriciously and
whimsically in total disregard of evidence material to or decisive
of the controversy so as to oust the latter of jurisdiction.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Almazan, Veloso, Mira & Partners for petitioner.

257

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 257

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

CHICO-NAZARIO,  J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court seeks to reverse the Decision1 dated 30
August 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
81808 affirming the Decision dated 29 May 2003 of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC
NCR 00-03-01898-00. The NLRC, in its Decision, affirmed
the Labor Arbiter’s Decision dated 25 March 2002, finding
that the dismissal by petitioner AMA Computer College,
Inc. (ACC) of respondents Ely Garcia (Garcia) and Ma.
Teresa Balla (Balla) was illegal and granting of backwages
and separation pay; but modified the same by deleting the
grant of 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay and
cost of living allowance. The Court of Appeals, in its
Resolution dated 1 December 2004, denied ACC’s motion
for reconsideration of its earlier Decision.
The factual antecedents of the case are as follows:
Garcia was hired as a janitress by ACC on 6 January
1988. On 15 May 1989, her employment status was
changed to probationary Library Aide. She became a
regular employee on 15 February 1990.
Balla was hired as a Social Worker by ACC on 1 August
1996. She later became a Guidance Assistant in the
Guidance Department of ACC, and on 2 June 1997, became
a regular employee.
On 21 March 2000, Anthony R. Vince Cruz, ACC Human
Resource Director, informed Garcia and Balla and 52 other
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

employees of the termination of their employment, thus:

“This is to formally inform you that due to the prevailing

economic condition of our economy and as part of the austerity
program of the company, the top management has decided to
come up with a

 _______________
1 Penned by Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. with Associate Justices
Josefina Guevarra-Salonga and Fernada Lampas-Peralta, concurring. Rollo, pp.
31-38.

258

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

manpower review of the AMA Group of Companies in order to

streamline its operation and the growth of the Organization.
In view of this, your position as Library Aide [for Ely; Guidance
Assistant, for Teresa] has (sic) been found no longer necessary for
the reason that your function can be handled by the other existing
staff.
Thus, we regret to inform you effective April 21, 2000, your
employment with AMA Group of Companies is hereby terminated.
x x x.”2

Thereafter, Garcia and Balla filed a complaint with the

Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal and prayed for the
payment of separation pay, 13th month pay, and attorney’s
fees, alleging that ACC’s streamlining program was tainted
with bad faith as there was no fair and reasonable criteria
used therein, such as the less preferred status, efficiency
rating and authority. They asserted that certain acts of
ACC belied its claim of being adversely affected by the
prevailing economic conditions, and that the statistics and
pattern of dismissal by the college indicate a nefarious
intent to circumvent the law on the security of tenure.
ACC, in its position paper, countered that Garcia and
Balla’s dismissal was due to the legitimate streamlining by
the company.
On 25 March 2002, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Garcia
and Balla were illegally dismissed and ordered the
payment of their backwages and additional separation pay.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision3

reads:

“Wherefore, premises all considered, judgment is hereby

rendered finding the dismissal illegal and ordering respondent
[petitioner ACC] to pay complainants [Garcia and Balla]
backwages and additional separation pay.

_______________

2 Rollo, p. 44.
3 Id., at pp. 137-142.

259

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 259

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

The Research and Computation Unit, (sic) this Commission is

hereby directed to effect the necessary computation which shall
form part of this decision.”

Aggrieved by the Labor Arbiter’s afore-quoted Decision,

ACC appealed to the NLRC.
On 20 May 2003, the NLRC4 affirmed the assailed
Decision of the Labor Arbiter with the modification of
deleting the award of 13th month pay, service incentive
leave pay and cost of living allowance. The NLRC thus
ordered:

“While We are in accord with the finding that complainants

were illegally dismissed from employment, We find the inclusion
of the relief of 13th month pay, Service Incentive Leave Pay and
Cost of Living Allowance as inappropriate.
Quite notable from the pro forma complaint that no prayer for
payment of cost of living allowance or service incentive leave pay
was indicated therein by the complainants (Records, p. 2). And,
while they may have indicated non-payment of the 13th month
benefit as a cause of action, nowhere in the Labor Arbiter’s
decision can it be gleaned that the said relief was adjudged in
favor of the complainants. Deletion of the aforesaid monetary
award is, therefore, decreed.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision under review

is hereby MODIFIED by DELETING the relief of 13th month pay,
service incentive leave pay and cost of living allowance therefrom.
In other respects, the decision, insofar as it orders the payment
to the complainants [Garcia and Balla] their backwages and
additional separation pay, shall stand AFFIRMED.”

ACC filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing

but the same was denied5 by the NLRC in a Resolution
dated 30 October 2003.
ACC then appealed6 by way of Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to the Court of Appeals
alleging

 _______________
4 Id., at pp. 49-54.
5 Id., at pp. 57-58.
6 Id., at pp. 59-77.

260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion amounting to

lack or in excess of jurisdiction in only partially modifying
the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and affirming the rest
thereof.
On 30 August 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered a
Decision7 affirming the Decision of the NLRC. In its
Decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that inquiry in a
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
is limited exclusively to the issue of whether or not
respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting
to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, and does not go as far as
to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence upon which the
NLRC and the Labor Arbiter based their determination.
ACC filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied
by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution8 dated 1 December
2004.
Hence, the present Petition for Review under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court filed by ACC raising the following
errors9 of the Court of Appeals:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN

DEPARTING FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE
OF JUDICIAL REVIEW[.]
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT
SUSTAINED THE FINDING OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
NOTWITHSTANDING THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
ADDUCED BY PETITIONER TO THE CONTRARY[.]
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT
REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE REDUNDANCY AS A BASIS IN
TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF RESPONDENT[S].

On 18 April 2005, We required10 Garcia and Balla to file

their Comment within ten days from notice, but they failed
to comply therewith despite notice.

 _______________
7  Id., at pp. 31-38.
8  Id., at pp. 41-42.
9  Id., at p. 16.
10 Id., at p. 198.

261

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 261

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

As a consequence, we required11 Garcia and Balla to

show cause why they should not be held in contempt of
court for failure to file their desired comment. Again, they
failed to comply with our show cause order, thus, we
imposed12 upon them a fine of P500.00 each payable within
ten days from receipt of notice.
Still failing to receive any response from Garcia and
Balla, we required13 ACC, on 2 October 2006, to inform the
Court of their current addresses.
In a Manifestation14 dated 18 January 2007, ACC stated
that, as for Garcia, it has the same address as the one
being considered by the Court; and as to Balla, all
pleadings and orders in the course of the proceedings
before the NLRC and the Court of Appeals were served to
her through Garcia’s address.
In a Resolution dated 28 February 2007, we noted ACC’s
Manifestation but considered its compliance unsatisfactory.
We required ACC to exert more effort in locating Garcia’s
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

present address and to inform the Court thereof within ten

days from notice.15
ACC through counsel failed to comply with our 28
February 2007 Resolution, thus, we required16 its counsel
to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for
failure to submit the addresses of Garcia and Balla despite
notice.
In a Compliance17 dated 5 December 2007, ACC through
counsel apologized for its inadvertence and asked for an ex-

 _______________
11 Id., at p. 199. Issued on 8 February 2006.
12 Id., at p. 200. Issued 12 July 2006.
13 Id., at p. 2004.
14 Id., at pp. 206-208.
15 Id., at p. 210.
16 Id., at p. 219.
17 Id., at pp. 220-224.

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

tension within which to comply with the 28 February 2007

Resolution, which was granted.18
ACC’s counsel would later inform us that various ways
were employed to search for Garcia’s address, such as
searches through the telephone directories, internet and
personal inquiries, but to no avail. Hence, ACC requested
for another extension,19 which was again granted.
In a Manifestation, dated 5 January 2007, ACC through
counsel stated that it already made a personal inquiry at
Garcia’s previous address, but still without success.
Thus, we resolved to dispense with Garcia and Balla’s
comment and submitted the case for decision based on the
pleadings filed.
Even without Garcia and Balla’s comment, this Court
denies ACC’s Petition.
The issues for resolution are factual and Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court provides that only questions of law may be
raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The raison
d’etre is that the Court is not a trier of facts. It is not to
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

reexamine and reevaluate the evidence on record.

Moreover, the factual findings of the NLRC, as affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, are accorded high respect and finality
unless the factual findings and conclusions of the Labor
Arbiter clash with those of the NLRC and the Court of
Appeals in which case, the Court will have to review the
records and the arguments of the parties to resolve the
factual issues and render substantial justice to the
parties.20
In termination cases, the burden of proving just and
valid cause for dismissing an employee from his
employment rests upon the employer, and the latter’s
failure to discharge that

 _______________
18 Id., at pp. 226.
19 Id., at pp. 227-233.
20 Union Motor Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 159738, 9 December 2004, 445 SCRA 683, 689.

263

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 263

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

burden would result in a finding that the dismissal is

unjustified.21
It must be stressed at the outset that ACC raised
different grounds to justify its dismissal of Garcia and
Balla: before the Labor Arbiter, it cited retrenchment;
before the NLRC, it claimed redundancy; and before the
Court of Appeals, it averred both retrenchment and
redundancy.
It is apparent that ACC itself is confused as to the real
reason why it terminated Garcia and Balla’s employment.
Both retrenchment and redundancy are authorized
causes for the termination of employment. According to
Article 283 of the Labor Code:

“ART.  283.  Closure of establishment and reduction of

personnel.—The employer may also terminate the employment of
any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices,
redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless

the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of
this Title, by serving a written notice on the worker and the
Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month
before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the
installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker
affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to
at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for
every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment
to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of
operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious
business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be
equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month
pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at
least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.”

Although governed by the same provision of the Labor

Code, retrenchment and redundancy are two distinct
grounds

 _______________
21  Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 331 Phil. 633, 642; 263 SCRA 313, 321-322 (1996).

264

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

for termination arising from different circumstances, thus,

they are in no way interchangeable.
Redundancy exists when the service capability of the
workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet
the demands of the business enterprise. A reasonably
redundant position is one rendered superfluous by any
number of factors, such as overhiring of workers, decreased
volume of business, dropping of a particular product line
previously manufactured by the company or phasing out of
service activity priorly undertaken by the business. Among
the requisites of a valid redundancy program are: (1) the
good faith of the employer in abolishing the redundant
position; and (2) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

what positions are to be declared redundant and

accordingly abolished.22
The determination that the employee’s services are no
longer necessary or sustainable and, therefore, properly
terminable for being redundant is an exercise of business
judgment of the employer. The wisdom or soundness of this
judgment is not subject to discretionary review of the Labor
Arbiter and the NLRC, provided there is no violation of law
and no showing that it was prompted by an arbitrary or
malicious act. In other words, it is not enough for a
company to merely declare that it has become overmanned.
It must produce adequate proof of such redundancy to
justify the dismissal of the affected employees.23
In Panlilio v. National Labor Relations Commission,24 it
was held that the following evidence may be proffered to
substantiate redundancy: the new staffing pattern,
feasibility studies/proposal on the viability of the newly
created posi-

 _______________
22 Asian Alcohol Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,
364 Phil. 912, 930; 305 SCRA 416, 433 (1999).
23  Asufrin, Jr. v. San Miguel Corporation, 469 Phil. 237, 245; 425
SCRA 270, 274 (2004).
24 346 Phil. 30, 34; 281 SCRA 53, 56 (1997).

265

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 265

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

tions, job description and the approval by the management

of the restructuring.
In the case at bar, ACC attempted to establish its
streamlining program by presenting its new table of
organization. ACC also submitted a certification25 by its
Human Resources Supervisor, Ma. Jazmin Reginaldo, that
the functions and duties of many rank and file employees,
including the positions of Garcia and Balla as Library Aide
and Guidance Assistant, respectively, are now being
performed by the supervisory employees. These, however,
do not satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence that
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

conclusion.26 As they are, they are grossly inadequate and

mainly self-serving. More compelling evidence would have
been a comparison of the old and new staffing patterns, a
description of the abolished and newly created positions,
and proof of the set business targets and failure to attain
the same which necessitated the reorganization or
streamlining.
To further justify its dismissal of Garcia and Balla, ACC
presented several memoranda to prove that Garcia and
Balla had been remiss in the performance of their duties,
as well as perennially tardy and absent. Other than being
self-serving, said memoranda are irrelevant to prove
redundancy of the positions held by Garcia and Balla.
Redundancy arises because there is no more need for the
employee’s position in relation to the whole business
organization, and not because the employee
unsatisfactorily performed the duties and responsibilities
required by his position. Redundancy is an authorized
cause for termination of employment under Article 282 of
the Labor Code; while serious misconduct or willful
disobedience or gross and habitual neglect of duties by the
employee is a just cause for dismissal under Article 283 of
the Code.

 _______________
25 Rollo, p. 91. Issued on 17 July 2003.
26 Mendoza v. National Labor Relations Commission, 369 Phil. 1113,
1130; 310 SCRA 846, 863 (1999).

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

The lingering doubt as to the existence of redundancy or

of ACC’s so called “streamlining program” is highlighted
even more by its non-presentation of the required notice27
to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at
least one month before the intended dismissal.28 The notice
to the DOLE would have afforded the labor department the
opportunity to look into and verify whether there is truth
as to ACC’s claim that a decline in its student population
resulted in excess manpower in the college. Compliance
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

with the required notices would have also established that

ACC pursued its streamlining program in good faith.
In balancing the interest between labor and capital, the
prudent recourse in termination cases is to safeguard the
prized security of tenure of employees and to require
employers to present the best evidence obtainable,
especially so because in most cases, the documents or proof
needed to resolve the validity of the termination, are in the
possession of employers. A contrary ruling would encourage
employers to utilize redundancy as a means of dismissing
employees when no valid grounds for termination are
shown by simply invoking a feigned or unsubstantiated
redundancy program.
Granting that ACC was able to substantiate the need for
streamlining its organization, it still failed to implement
the same using fair and reasonable criteria for choosing
which employees to dismiss. Among the accepted criteria in
implementing a redundancy are: (a) less preferred status,
e.g., tem-

_______________
27 ART. 283.  Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel.—
The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to
the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to
prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment
or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the
provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the worker
and the Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1)
month before the intended date thereof. x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
28 Rollo, p. 53.

267

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 267

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

porary employee; (b) efficiency; and (c) seniority.29 There is

no showing that ACC applied any of these criteria in
determining that, among its employees, Garcia and Balla
should be dismissed, thus, making their dismissal arbitrary
and illegal.
Retrenchment, on the other hand, is the termination of
employment effected by management during periods of
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

business recession, industrial depression, seasonal

fluctuations, lack of work or considerable reduction in the
volume of the employer’s business.30 Resorted to by an
employer to avoid or minimize business losses,31 it is a
management prerogative consistently recognized by this
Court.32
There are three basic requisites for a valid retrenchment
to exist, to wit: (a) the retrenchment is necessary to prevent
losses and such losses are proven; (b) written notice to the
employees and to the DOLE at least one (1) month prior to
the intended date of retrenchment; and (c) payment of
separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least
one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher.33
To justify retrenchment, the employer must prove
serious business losses.34 Indeed, not all business losses
suffered by the employer would justify retrenchment under
Article 283 of the Labor Code.35 The “loss” referred to in
Article 283 cannot

_______________
29 Asufrin, Jr. v. San Miguel Corporation, supra note 23 at p. 275.
30 De la Cruz v. National Labor Relations Commission, 335 Phil. 932,
939; 268 SCRA 458, 467 (1997).
31 Somerville Stainless Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 350 Phil. 859, 869; 287 SCRA 420, 429 (1998).
32 Id.
33 F.F. Marine Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 152039, 8 April 2005, 455 SCRA 154, 165.
34  Balbalec v. National Labor Relations Commission, 321 Phil. 771,
778; 251 SCRA 398, 403 (1995).
35 Guerrero v. National Labor Relations Commission, 329 Phil. 1069,
1075; 261 SCRA 301, 307 (1996).

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

be just any kind or amount of loss; otherwise, a company

could easily feign excuses to suit its whims and prejudices
or to rid itself of unwanted employees.36

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

In a number of cases, the Court has identified the

necessary conditions for the company losses to justify
retrenchment: (1) the losses incurred are substantial and
not de minimis; (2) the losses are actual or reasonably
imminent; (3) the retrenchment is reasonably necessary
and is likely to be effective in preventing the expected
losses; and (d) the alleged losses, if already incurred, or the
expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled, are
proven by sufficient and convincing evidence.37 ACC
miserably failed to prove any of the foregoing.
In the case at bar, ACC claimed that the retrenchment
of Garcia and Balla was justified due to the financial
difficulties experienced by the college that it was made
effective in all of its campuses and for all departments; and
appropriate notices were given to Garcia and Balla. But
other than its bare allegations, ACC failed to present any
supporting evidence.
Not only was ACC unable to prove its losses, it also
failed to present proof that it served the necessary notice to
the DOLE one month before the purported retrenchment of
Garcia and Balla.38 As also found by the Labor Arbiter, and
affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, ACC did
not give Garcia and Balla sufficient separation pay. Falling
short

_______________
36  Somerville Stainless Steel Corp v. National Labor Relations
Commission, supra note 31.
37 Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Federation of Free Workers, G.R. Nos.
75700-01, 30 August 1990, 189 SCRA 179, 186-187; Somerville Stainless
Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 31;
Revidad v. National Labor Relations Commission, 315 Phil. 373, 395; 245
SCRA 356, 372 (1995); Catatista v. National Labor Relations Commission,
317 Phil. 54, 61; 247 SCRA 46, 52 (1995); San Miguel Jeepney Service v.
National Labor Relations Commission, 332 Phil. 804; 265 SCRA 35 (1996).
38 Rollo, p. 140.

269

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 269

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

of all the requirements, ACC cannot claim that it had

effected a valid retrenchment of Garcia and Balla.
In sum, the Court finds no basis for disturbing the
consistent findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the
Court of Appeals that ACC was not able to discharge the
burden of proving that its dismissal of Garcia and Balla
was valid.
Finally, ACC argues that the Court of Appeals should
not have limited its power of review to the finding of grave
abuse of discretion allegedly committed by the NLRC, but
should have considered the substantial evidence adduced
by ACC.
The contention is without merit.
The extent of judicial review by certiorari of decisions or
resolutions of the NLRC, as exercised previously by the
Supreme Court and now by the Court of Appeals, is
described in Zarate, Jr. v. Olegario,39 thus—

“The rule is settled that the original and exclusive jurisdiction

of this Court to review a decision of respondent NLRC (or
Executive Labor Arbiter as in this case) in a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 does not normally include an inquiry into the
correctness of its evaluation of the evidence. Errors of
judgment, as distinguished from errors of jurisdiction, are
not within the province of a special civil action for
certiorari, which is merely confined to issues of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. It is thus
incumbent upon petitioner to satisfactorily establish that
respondent Commission or executive labor arbiter acted
capriciously and whimsically in total disregard of evidence
material to or even decisive of the controversy, in order that the
extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie. By grave abuse of
discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must be
shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or
despotically. For certiorari to lie, there must be capricious,
arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, the very antithesis of
the judicial prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil
law and common law traditions.” (Italics supplied.)

_______________

39 331 Phil. 278, 287-288; 263 SCRA 1, 9-10 (1996).

270

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

The Court of Appeals, therefore, can grant the petition

for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed
decision or resolution, committed grave abuse of discretion
by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding
evidence which is material or decisive of the controversy.
In Garcia v. National Labor Relations Commission,40 we
further defined the scope of the Court of Appeals’ power to
review the evidence when the decision of the NLRC is
brought before it via a petition for certiorari—

“[I]n Ong v. People, we ruled that certiorari can be properly

resorted to where the factual findings complained of are not
supported by the evidence on record. Earlier, in Gutib v. Court of
Appeals, we emphasized thus:
[I]t has been said that a wide breadth of discretion is
granted a court of justice in certiorari proceedings. The
cases in which certiorari will issue cannot be defined,
because to do so would be to destroy its comprehensiveness
and usefulness. So wide is the discretion of the court that
authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more
discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus. In the
exercise of our superintending control over inferior courts,
we are to be guided by all the circumstances of each
particular case “as the ends of justice may require.” So it is
that the writ will be granted where necessary to
prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial
justice.
And in another case of recent vintage, we further held:
In the review of an NLRC decision through a special civil
action for certiorari, resolution is confined only to issues of
jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
labor tribunal. Hence, the Court refrains from reviewing
factual assessments of lower courts and agencies exercising
adjudicative functions, such as the NLRC. Occasionally,
however, the Court is constrained to delve into factual
matters where, as in the instant case, the findings of the
NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter.

_______________
40 G.R. No. 147427, 7 February 2005, 450 SCRA 535, 548-549.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

271

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 271

Ama Computer College, Inc. vs. Garcia

In this instance, the Court in the exercise of its equity

jurisdiction may look into the records of the case and re-examine
the questioned findings. As a corollary, this Court is clothed with
ample authority to review matters, even if they are not assigned
as errors in their appeal, if it finds that their consideration is
necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case. The same
principles are now necessarily adhered to and are applied by the
Court of Appeals in its expanded jurisdiction over labor cases
elevated through a petition for certiorari; thus, we see no error on
its part when it made anew a factual determination of the matters
and on that basis reversed the ruling of the NLRC.” (Italics
supplied.)

None of the foregoing circumstances exists in this case

that would justify the Court of Appeals, in a petition for
certiorari, to look into and re-weigh the evidence on record
to determine whether the NLRC committed errors of
judgment as regards thereto. Absent exceptional
circumstances, the general rule applies and the Court of
Appeals is limited only to ascertaining whether the NLRC
acted capriciously and whimsically in total disregard of
evidence material to or decisive of the controversy so as to
oust the latter of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED.
The Decision dated 30 August 2004 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 81808 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez,

Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Notes.—The question of whether respondent was

dismissed for just cause is a question of fact which is
beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari.
(Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 494 SCRA 661 [2006])

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/20
11/22/21, 7:59 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d44f7a78e11b32e5e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/20