ASUFRIN, JR., v.

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION NLRC: set aside the Labor Arbiters decision and ordered respondent SMC to reinstate
petitioner to his former or equivalent position with full backwages.
FACTS:
CA: reversed the decision of the NLRC and reinstated the judgment of the Labor Arbiter
 Coca Cola Plant, then a department of respondent San Miguel Beer Corporation
dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal.
(SMC), hired petitioner as a utility/miscellaneous worker. He then became a regular
employee paid on daily basis as a Forklift Operator. But then became a monthly paid The Court: The decision of the NLRC is REINSTATED. petitioners dismissal is declared illegal,
employee promoted as Stock Clerk. and respondent is ordered to reinstate him to his former or equivalent position, with full
 Sometime in 1984, the sales office and operations at the Sum-ag, Bacolod City backwages
Sales Office were reorganized. Several positions were abolished including
Wiltshire File Co., Inc. v. NLRC: We believe that redundancy, for purposes of the Labor Code,
petitioners’ position as Stock Clerk. After reviewing petitioners’ qualifications, he
exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by
was designated warehouse checker at the Sum-ag Sales Office.
the actual requirements of the enterprise. Succinctly put, a position is redundant where it is
 respondent SMC implemented a new marketing system known as the "pre-selling
superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of
scheme.” As a consequence, all positions of route sales and warehouse personnel
factors, such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business, or dropping of a
were declared redundant.
particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the
 Respondent SMC thereafter wrote a letter to petitioner informing him that all
enterprise.
positions of route and warehouse personnel will be declared redundant and the
Sum-ag Sales Office will be closed effective. Petitioner reported to respondents  In other words, it is not enough for a company to merely declare that it has
Personnel Department at the Sta. Fe Brewery, pursuant to a previous directive. become overmanned. It must produce adequate proof that such is the actual
 Employees of Sum-ag sales force were informed that they can avail of an early situation to justify the dismissal of the affected employees for redundancy.
retirement package while those who will not avail of early retirement would be
redeployed or absorbed to other sales offices.
 Petitioner opted to remain and manifested his willingness to be assigned to any job,  First, 9 accepted the offer of SMC to avail of the early retirement. The rest, including
considering that he had three children in college. petitioner, did not accept the offer. And only petitioner clearly manifested his desire
 Petitioner was surprised when his name was included in the list of employees who to be redeployed to the Sta. Fe Brewery or any sales office and for any position. In
availed of the early retirement package. short, he was even willing to accept a demotion just to continue his employment.
Meanwhile, other employees who did not even write a letter to SMC were
redeployed to the Sta. Fe Brewery or absorbed by other offices/outlets.

 Second, petitioner was in the payroll of the Sta. Fe Brewery and assigned to the
Materials Section, Logistics Department, although he was actually posted at the
Sum-ag Warehouse. Thus, even assuming that his position in the Sum-ag
Warehouse became redundant, he should have been returned to the Sta. Fe
LA: dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
Brewery where he was actually assigned and where there were vacant positions to They either had to voluntarily retire, be retrenched with benefits or be dismissed
accommodate him. without receiving any benefit at all.

 Third, it appears that despite respondent’s allegation that it ceased and closed  What was the true nature of petitioners offer to private respondents? It was in
down its warehousing operations at the Sum-ag Sales Office, actually it is still used reality a Hobsons choice. All that the private respondents were offered was a
for warehousing activities and as a transit point where buyers and dealers get their choice on the means or method of terminating their services but never as to the
stocks. Indeed, the Sum-ag Office is strategically situated on the southern part of status of their employment. In short, they were never asked if they wanted to
Bacolod City making it convenient for dealers from the southern towns of Negros work for petitioner.
Occidental to get their stocks and deposit their empty bottles in the said warehouse,
thereby decongesting the business activities at the Sta. Fe Brewery.
 It bears stressing that whether it be by redundancy or retrenchment or any of the
other authorized causes, no employee may be dismissed without observance of
 Fourth, in selecting employees to be dismissed, a fair and reasonable criterion the fundamentals of good faith.
must be used, such as but not limited to (a) less preferred status, e.g. temporary
employee; (b) efficiency; and (c) seniority.
 Given the nature of petitioners job as a Warehouse Checker, it is inconceivable
that respondent could not accommodate his services considering that the
 In the case at bar, no criterion whatsoever was adopted by respondent in warehousing operations at Sum-ag Sales Office has not shut down. All told, to
dismissing petitioner. Furthermore, as correctly observed by the NLRC, respondent sustain the position taken by the appellate court would be to dilute the
"has not shown how the cessation of operations of the Sum-ag Sales Office workingman’s most important right: his constitutional right to security of tenure.
contributed to the ways and means of improving effectiveness of the organization
Governor General Leonard Wood in his inaugural message before the 6th Philippine
with the end in view of efficiency and cutting distribution overhead and other
Legislature on October 27, 1922: "labor is neither a chattel nor a commodity, but human
related costs. Respondent, thus, clearly resorted to sweeping generalization[s] in
and must be dealt with from the standpoint of human interest."
dismissing complainant." Indeed, petitioner’s predicament may have something to
do with an incident where he incurred the ire of an immediate superior in the Sales As has been said: "We do not treat our workers as merchandise and their right to security
Logistics Unit for exposing certain irregularities committed by the latter. of tenure cannot be valued in precise peso-and-centavo terms. It is a right which cannot
be allowed to be devalued by the purchasing power of employers who are only too willing
to bankroll the separation pay of their illegally dismissed employees to get rid of them."2
 Even if private respondents were given the option to retire, be retrenched or
This right will never be respected by the employer if we merely honor it with a price tag.
dismissed, they were made to understand that they had no choice but to leave the
company. More bluntly stated, they were forced to swallow the bitter pill of
dismissal but afforded a chance to sweeten their separation from employment.