San Miguel Corporation v. Caroline del Rosario G.R. Nos.

168194 & 168603 December 13, 2005 Facts - Caroline del Rosario is a KEY ACCOUNTANT SPECIALIST of SMC on April 17, 2000. -She was a temporary reliever of another employee who met an accident -after the restructuring of the accounts in SMC, the previously hired 49 employees were considered to be in excess of what was needed by the newly organized accounts -She was informed that her PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT will be severed at the close of the business hours of March 12, 2001. - March 13, 2001: she wasnt allowed to go inside SMC -She filed a case for illegal dismissal SMC: She was a probationary employee whose services were terminated as a result of the excess manpower that could no longer be accommodated by the company (redundancy) CAROLINE: excess in manpower is not true, in fact, they employed several other recruits & her other batchmates LA: in favor of Caroline; SMC didnt rebut the Carolines claim that SMC hired several other employees although she was dismissed due to redundancy; she was already a regular employee bec. the time exceeded 6 months already; no valid cause of dismissal -awarded holiday pay, backwages, service incentive leave & 13th month pay NLRC: modified; she was a regular employee terminated for valid cause but ineffectual bec. SMC failed to comply with the 30-day notice to the employee -separation pay, full backwages, reduced 13th month pay & service incentive leave CA First Division: illegally dismissed employee; deleted holiday pay for lack of basis Third Division: affirmed the NLRC Hence, 2 separate appeals ?1: Was Caroline a regular employee? ?2: Was she illegally dismissed? ?3: What monetary benefits should she get? SC ?1: no proof of probationary employment status was given by SMC, hence, she was hired as a regular employee for 11 months. The best proof could have been the employment contract but none was presented. Payroll is insufficient to prove the Reliever Status of Caroline ?2: Yes. -SMC claims that Caroline was dismissed due to redundancy. -Redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise; a position is redundant where it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors, such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business, or dropping of a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise -WHAT CONSTITUTES SUFFICIENT PROOF: Panlilio v. NLRC the new staffing pattern, feasibility studies/proposal, on the viability of the newly created positions, job description and the approval by the management of the restructuring -What was presented an affidavit of its Sales Manager and a memorandum of the company = insufficient ALSO, no notice to DOLE ?3: ARTICLE 279 -reinstatement without loss of seniority rights & other privileges and she is entitled to full backwages to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement -she is entitled to service incentive leave and 13th Month Pay -BUT NOT entitled to holiday pay: because the records reveal that she is a monthly paid regular employee. Under Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of working days therein, shall be presumed to be paid for all the days in the month whether worked or not