MKP v. PLDT

Mangagawa nang Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas vs. PLDT

G.R. No. 190389/G.R. No. 190390

April 19, 2017

Facts:

On June, 2002, the labor organization of Mangagawa nang Komunikasyon nang Pilipinas (petitioner)

which represented the employees of PLDT, filed a notice of strike and accused PLDT of unfair labor practice for failure to bargain collectively with the petitioner in good faith.

Later, PLDT filed for a redundancy program and declared 323 employees as redundant.

The Sec of labor and employment certified the labor dispute for compulsory arbitration and ordered a “return to work” order to both the petitioner and respondent.

On Oct 2005, the NLRC dismissed the petitioner’s charges and held that respondent’s redundancy program was valid because PLDT was able to present sufficient evidence for its validity.

The NLRC ruled that the termination of employment is legal due to the redundancy program of PLDT.

MKP filed another case and assailed that the affected employees should be paid their salaries during the period of Jan 2003 (the day they were separated) to Apr 2006 (the day when the NLRC declared the dismissal invalid).

CA denied MKP’s petition.

Aggrieved by CA’s decision, the petitioner filed for a review on certiorari.

Issue:

• WON the termination of employment was legal
• WON the affected employees shall be entitled to back wages from the time the return to work order was issued up to the declaration of the legality of the termination.

Held:

1. Yes. An employer’s declaration of redundancy becomes valid and an authorized cause for dismissal when the employer proves by substantial evidence that the services of an employee are more than what is reasonably demanded by requirements of a business enterprise. Article 298 of the labor code.

2. No. A return to work order is different from a reinstatement order. Only in an reinstatement order by a court can allow a dismissed worker to file payment of back wages against its employer.

A return to work order does not have the same effect as a reinstatement order; hence it does not give the right to an employee to file payment of back wages against its employer.