Scribd
Upload
211 views2 pages

Abbot

Abbott Laboratories Philippines terminated three employees when it merged its PediaSure and Medical Nutrition divisions. The employees claimed illegal dismissal, arguing Abbott did not follow proper criteria for determining redundancy. Abbott claimed the terminations were due to a valid redundancy program. The Court ruled the redundancy program was invalid because Abbott did not utilize fair criteria to determine which employees would be terminated versus retained for the merged division. Specifically, Abbott did not properly evaluate individual employee performance and subsequently hired more employees, inconsistent with claiming redundancy. The terminations were illegal as Abbott did not meet its burden of proving the dismissals were for a valid authorized cause.

Uploaded by

Rex Regio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
211 views2 pages

Abbot

Abbott Laboratories Philippines terminated three employees when it merged its PediaSure and Medical Nutrition divisions. The employees claimed illegal dismissal, arguing Abbott did not follow proper criteria for determining redundancy. Abbott claimed the terminations were due to a valid redundancy program. The Court ruled the redundancy program was invalid because Abbott did not utilize fair criteria to determine which employees would be terminated versus retained for the merged division. Specifically, Abbott did not properly evaluate individual employee performance and subsequently hired more employees, inconsistent with claiming redundancy. The terminations were illegal as Abbott did not meet its burden of proving the dismissals were for a valid authorized cause.

Uploaded by

Rex Regio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

229746

ABBOTT LABO RA TORIES (PHILIPPINES), INC. and STEPHANE LANGEVIN vs. MANUEL F.
TORRALBA, ROSELLE P. ALMAZAR, and REDEL ULYSSES M. NAVARRO

Facts: Respondents Roselle P. Almazar, Redel Ulysses M. Navarro and Manuel F. Torralba
were employed by Abbott in the PediaSure Division. However, the positions of the respondents
were declared redundant when the PediaSure Division and its Medical Nutrition Division were
merged into one. This resulted in the termination of the respondents who were subsequently
offered another position. The offer was denied by the respondents. Respondents signed a
Quitclaim after receiving the amounts offered by Abbott. Respondents filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal arguing that the criteria of preference of status, efficiency, and seniority in
determining who among its redundant employees are to be retained was not observed. Abbott
maintained that respondents were terminated for an authorized cause. LA held that respondents
were illegally dismissed due to Abbott’s failure to overcome the burden of proving the validity of
redundancy. NLRC agreed with LA but ruled that the quitclaim precluded respondents from
claiming that there was illegal dismissal. On appeal, CA ruled that as the ground for termination
of employment was illegal, the deeds signed by respondents could not also be valid. Hence, this
petition.

Issue: Whether or not the redundancy program implemented by petitioners was valid.

Ruling: No. No fair and reasonable criteria was utilized in determining who among the
employees are to be redundated. The burden of proving that the dismissal of the employees
was for a valid and authorized cause rests on the employer. Failure to discharge this duty would
mean that the dismissal is illegal. Redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in
excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirement of the enterprise. For there
to be a valid implementation of a redundancy program, the following should be present: (1)
written notice served on both the employees and the Department of Labor and Employment at
least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; (2) payment of separation pay
equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and (4) fair and
reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly
abolished.

While there may be basis for integrating the PediaSure Division and Medical Nutrition Division
into one unit as demonstrated in the Study, there is no sufficient basis offered for retaining all
the employees in one unit while dismissing those from the other. It may be that there are
similarities in the functions and responsibilities attached to the positions in both divisions that
resulted in superfluity, but determining who will occupy the newly merged position is a different
matter altogether. This required, on the part of the employer, an evaluation of not just the
performance of the divisions, but of the individual employees who may be affected by the
redundancy program. Also the employer's subsequent act of hiring additional employees is
inconsistent with the termination on the ground of redundancy. Respondents claimed that they
offered complainants to apply for job openings for the opposition of district sales manager. Such
offer only puts cloud to the wisdom and validity of the redundancy program as the essence of
redundancy is that the existing manpower exceeds more than what is necessary in their
operation, why did they open new jobs for sales manager.

You might also like