Dear Atty. Angela,

My husband’s company recently merged with its sister company. Now, he was one of those who were selected to be transferred and relocated to another province. Since he does not want to be far away from us, he declined and refused the offer. Thereafter, he received a notice informing him of his dismissal due to redundancy, since the company was not doing well despite the merger. Was he validly dismissed, Atty.?

Chynna

□□□□□

Dear Chynna,

The Supreme Court stated that in termination cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the employee’s dismissal was for a valid and authorized cause. Consequently, an employer’s failure to prove that the dismissal was valid renders the dismissal illegal.

In the case of Teletech Customer Care Management Philippines Inc. v. Gerona Jr., G.R. No. 219166, 10 November 2021, the Supreme Court reiterated established principles by stating that redundancy exists when an employee’s services are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the business. To successfully invoke a valid dismissal due to redundancy, the company must provide substantial proof that the services of the employees are in excess of what is required of the company.

In the case of 3M PHILIPPINES INC. vs Yuseco, G.R. No. 248941, 9 November 2020, the Supreme Court reiterated: “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 position is redundant where it had become superfluous. Superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors such as over-hiring of workers, decrease in volume of business, or dropping a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.”

A valid redundancy program must comply with the following requisites: (a) written notice served on both the employees and the DoLE at least one month prior to the intended date of termination of employment; (b) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay for every year of service; (c) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and (d) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished, taking into consideration such factors as (i) preferred status; (ii) efficiency; and (iii) seniority, among others.

From the foregoing, the validity of your husband’s dismissal would rely on the circumstances surrounding the case. It is the employer’s burden to prove its validity and it must be noted that an employer can validly dismiss an employee from the service due to redundancy if it is proven that such employee’s position has already become in excess of what the employer’s enterprise requires.

Atty. Angela Antonio