REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII
Governor's Cottage, Capitol Area, Dumaguete City

AGATHA YOLA BAYOCBOC, RAB VII Case No.____

VALERIE TUBLE, SITTI
JAMBARANI, ISABELLA
SUARES, THEA MARIE
CENIZA, KIRSTIN PINTOR,
KAYCEE SUMBILON, RICA
ABRIO, PATRICIA DE LA VINA,
VANICE SALVORO, DIANNE
CARDENAS, BIANCA ACURAM,
MIRIAM VILLAMIL, JUSTINE
DENISE FERANCO, KAMILLE
ENAD
Complainants,

- versus -

SATANS MEDICAL CENTER

Respondent.
x --------------------------------- x

POSITION PAPER

Respondent, thru the undersigned and unto this Honorable Labor

Arbitration Office, respectfully submits this position paper and states that:

MATERIAL DATES

During the mandatory conciliation conference held on January 13,

2020, the Honorable Labor Arbiter directed the parties to file simultaneously
their respective position papers within twenty (20) days, or no later than
March 20, 2020.

THE PARTIES

Complainants AGATHA YOLA BAYOCBOC, VALERIE

TUBLE, SITTI JAMBARANI, ISABELLA SUARES, THEA MARIE
CENIZA, KIRSTIN PINTOR, KAYCEE SUMBILON, RICA ABRIO,
PATRICIA DE LA VINA, VANICE SALVORO, DIANNE
CARDENAS, BIANCA ACURAM, MIRIAM VILLAMIL, JUSTINE
DENISE FERANCO, KAMILLE ENADAHMED (hereinafter referred to

1
as complainants) are of legal age, single, and residents of Dumaguete City.
They can be served with notices, orders, resolutions and other processes of
this Honorable Labor Arbitration Branch at the address of their undersigned
counsel.

Respondent SATANS UNIVERSITY (hereinafter referred to as

respondent) is a socially conscious academic institution in Dumaguete City
operating an infirmary which serves as its community out-reach program. It
may beserved with summons, orders, resolutions and other processes of this
Honorable Office at Barangay Daro, Dumaguete City.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. As part of its community outreach program, SATANS, a socially

conscious academic institution in Dumaguete City began operating
SATANS infirmary on June 12, 1995.

2. Due to the increase of workload, respondents hired the complainants as

Physicians, Nurses, Clerks and Secretaries respectively on February 13,
2014.

3. On January 13, 2019 however, the respondents noticed a decrease

enrollment of students, which greatly affected the University’s financial
capability to keep the respondents under their payroll.

4. In response to this, on May 24, 2019 the respondents handed out an Inter-
Office Memo inviting the complainants to a meeting, to be held the next
day, May 25, 2019, concerning their “working condition.”

5. In the said meeting, the complainants were fully informed of the current
financial situation of the University and its inability to continue to keep
the respondents under their employment. Hence, the respondents handed
the complainants letters of termination explaining the reason for their
dismissal as follows:

“Due to the current financial situation of Silly Men University

caused by the decrease in enrollment in our institution, the Board
of Regents in its last meeting of May 25, 2019 has advised the
Health Services Department of Silly Men University to downsize
the health services staff at the end of this 1 st Semester of School
Year 2019-2020.

Accordingly, we were forced to eliminate the 15 excess personnel.

It is really with regret that management has to take this decision, as

a last resort, to prevent serious business losses.

2
 Your last day of service with SATANS University shall be two
month after your receipt of this letter.

The payments that you shall be receiving are the computation of

your one (1) month pay of the thirty (30) days notice, one half
(1/2) month of basic salary for every year of service as a regular
employee (as of February 13, 2014), 13 th month pay and tax
refund.”

6. 5 days after the meeting and upon the complainants request the
respondents furnished the former with the University’s independently
audited financial statements dating from the years 2015 to 2018 to clearly
show that its losses increased through a period of time and that the
condition of the company is not likely to improve in the near future.

PROPOSED ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED

Was complainants’ dismissal pursuant to respondent’s retrenchment

program legal?

DISCUSSION / ARGUMENTS

Respondents, thru the undersigned counsel, submits that the

retrenchment program resorted to by the responded was legal, and thus,
complainants were legally dismissed.

The Labor Code recognizes retrenchment as an authorized cause for

terminating employment.1 It is an option validly available to an employer to
address “losses in the operation of the enterprise, lack of work, or
considerable reduction on the volume of business”. 2Retrenchment is
normally resorted to by management during periods of business reverses and
economic difficulties occasioned by such events as recession, industrial
depression, or seasonal fluctuations. It is an act of the employer of reducing
1
Article 298. [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
workers and the Ministry 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.
2
Edge Apparel, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 349 Phil. 972, 982 (1998).
[Per J. Vitug, First Division]

3
the work force because of losses in the operation of the enterprise, lack of
work, or considerable reduction on the volume of business. Retrenchment is,
in many ways, a measure of last resort when other less drastic means have
been tried and found to be inadequate.3

In Cabaobas v. Pepsi4, the Court ruled that the requisites for a valid
retrenchment are as follows:
1. The retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to
prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not
merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real,
or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived
objectively and in good faith by the employer;
2. The employer served written notice both to the employees
and to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at
least one (1) month prior to the intended date of
retrenchment;
3. The employer pays the retrenched employees 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;
4. The employer exercises its prerogative to retrench
employees in good faith for the advancement of its interest
and not to defeat or circumvent the employees’ right to
security of tenure; and
5. The employer used fair and reasonable criteria in
ascertaining who would be dismissed and would be retained
among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority,
physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain
workers.

Respondent’s aver that they have satisfied the requirements set forth
by the by the court for a valid retrenchment.

First, the retrenchment was necessary and done to prevent business losses, as
evidenced by the independently audited financial statements from the years
2015 to 2018 made by the respondent clearly showed that a drop of income
of the University by almost 60% due to the lack of enrollees during the
school year 2015-2018 due to the implementation of the K-12 Law.

Second, the respondents served the complainants as well as the Department

of Labor and Employment notices on April 1, 2019, clearly within the one
month period.

Third, the respondents have already paid the complainants their separation
pay equivalent one (1) month pay of the thirty (30) days notice, one half

3
La Consolacion College v. Pascua, G.R. No. 214744, March 14, 2018
4
G.R. No. 176908, March 25, 2015.

4
(1/2) month of basic salary for every year of service as a regular employee
(as of February 13, 2014), 13th month pay and tax refund.

Fourth, the retrenchment was made by the respondents in good faith, and not
to defeat or circumvent the employees’ right to security of tenure, the
respondents has made multiple arrangements to maintain the employment of
the complainants however, taking into consideration the companies limited
finances, retention of the latter was deemed to be not only impractical but
also impossible.

Fifth, the respondents used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who
would be dismissed and would be retained among the employees. The
respondents conducted several meetings and employed several criteria in
said meetings ultimately assessing which employees should be dismissed.

Thus, the respondents have undoubtedly satisfied the requirements set for by
the court for a valid retrenchment, hence, the dismissal of the complainant
was done lawfully and in good faith.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

judgment be issued declaring that the complainants have been LEGALLY
DISMISSED by way of VALID RETRENCHMENT.

FINALLY, the complainants respectfully pray for such and other

reliefs asmay be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

July 15, 2020,Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, Philippines.

GERARD ANTHONY T. ROSALES

Notary Public
Commission Serial No.12345 - Until December 31, 2021
Roll of Attorney 654321
IPB No. 1879595/Jan.2018/Negros Oriental
PTR No. 1231512312/Jan.2018/Cebu City
MCLE No. VI-1123125123

Copy furnished: (by Registered Mail)

SATANS MEDICAL CENTER
Brgy. Daro, SATANS University
Dumaguete City
EXPLANATION

5
 There being no messenger employed by the undersigned to effect
personal service considering that he is preoccupied with other equally
important cases, copy of the foregoing paper shall be sent via LBC.

(SGD.) GERARD ANTHONY T. ROSALES