Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 150 views

    Asufrin V SMC

    Uploaded by

    Banana
    This case involved an employee, Asufrin, who was dismissed by San Miguel Corporation claiming redundancy. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was improper for several reasons: (1) Asufrin expressed a desire to remain in employment but was placed on early retirement instead of other options; (2) he was actually employed by another company and his position at the warehouse was only temporary; (3) the warehouse was still operational after reorganization so claimed redundancy was unnecessary; and (4) there was no valid reason to dismiss Asufrin over other employees. The Court found SMC's reasons for dismissal lacked good faith and were not a valid exercise of business judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Asufrin V SMC

    Uploaded by

    Banana
    150 views2 pages
    This case involved an employee, Asufrin, who was dismissed by San Miguel Corporation claiming redundancy. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was improper for several reasons: (1) Asufrin expressed a desire to remain in employment but was placed on early retirement instead of other options; (2) he was actually employed by another company and his position at the warehouse was only temporary; (3) the warehouse was still operational after reorganization so claimed redundancy was unnecessary; and (4) there was no valid reason to dismiss Asufrin over other employees. The Court found SMC's reasons for dismissal lacked good faith and were not a valid exercise of business judgment.

    Original Description:

    na

    Original Title

    51. Asufrin v SMC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved an employee, Asufrin, who was dismissed by San Miguel Corporation claiming redundancy. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was improper for several reasons: (1) Asufrin expressed a desire to remain in employment but was placed on early retirement instead of other options; (2) he was actually employed by another company and his position at the warehouse was only temporary; (3) the warehouse was still operational after reorganization so claimed redundancy was unnecessary; and (4) there was no valid reason to dismiss Asufrin over other employees. The Court found SMC's reasons for dismissal lacked good faith and were not a valid exercise of business judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    150 views2 pages

    Asufrin V SMC

    Uploaded by

    Banana
    This case involved an employee, Asufrin, who was dismissed by San Miguel Corporation claiming redundancy. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was improper for several reasons: (1) Asufrin expressed a desire to remain in employment but was placed on early retirement instead of other options; (2) he was actually employed by another company and his position at the warehouse was only temporary; (3) the warehouse was still operational after reorganization so claimed redundancy was unnecessary; and (4) there was no valid reason to dismiss Asufrin over other employees. The Court found SMC's reasons for dismissal lacked good faith and were not a valid exercise of business judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ASUFRIN v.

    SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION


    G.R. No. 156658; 10 Mar 2004; YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

    I. Facts:
    a. Asufrin was hired as a utility/misc. worker in a Coca-Cola plant. He eventually became a
    regular employee, and was finally assigned as a stock clerk.
    b. However, reorganization at their office resulted in the abolishment of several positions,
    including Asufrin’s, though he was reassigned as warehouse checker at the Sum-ag Sales
    Office.
    c. Years later, SMC implemented a new marketing system (pre-selling scheme) at the Sum-
    ag office. Asufrin’s position, among others, was declared redundant.
    d. SMC informed Asufrin of the changes. Asufrin, at this point, would report to the
    Personnel Department at the Sta. Fe Brewery.
    e. Eventually, the employees were given a choice to avail of early retirement, or to be
    redeployed or reassigned to other officers. Asufrin chose the latter, but for some reason,
    he was included in the list of employees who opted to avail of early retirement. His
    protests were ignored by their personnel manager.
    f. As a result, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. LA dismissed the complaint. NLRC
    reversed it and ordered reinstatement with full backwages. CA reversed the NLRC
    decision.
    II. Issues:
    a. Whether or not the dismissal based on ‘redundancy’ was proper.
    III. Held:
    a. No, it was not; the circumstances of the dismissal show that there was actually no basis
    for dismissal due to redundancy, and that there were better alternatives.
    IV. Ratio:
    a. No, it was not; the circumstances of the dismissal show that there was actually no basis
    for dismissal due to redundancy, and that there were better alternatives.
    i. Redundancy is indeed a valid cause for dismissal, but it must be well justified by
    the situation.
    1. Dole v NLRC: Redundancy occurs when there is a duplication of work,
    where the said duplication exceeds the reasonable requirements of an
    enterprise such that it becomes a superfluity. (e.g. of situations:
    overhiring of workers, dropping of certain services)
    2. Redundancy is a business decision that normally cannot be reviewed
    unless it can be shown that there was no valid justification for the
    dismissal. This requires an examination of the circumstances of the
    business vis-à-vis the employees.
    ii. Several circumstances show that Asufrin’s dismissal based on redundancy was
    improper:
    1. The petitioner clearly manifested a desire to remain, even willing to be
    demoted just to continue employment, yet he was placed in the early
    retirement list. Other employees who were not as vigilant were allowed
    to remain.
    2. Petitioner was actually in the payroll of the Sta. Fe Brewery, but was
    merely assigned to the Sum-ag warehouse. Even if the Sum-ag positions
    were abolished, he was only supposed to return to the Sta. Fe Brewery.
    3. The Sum-ag Office was not exactly closed—it was still used to keep
    stocks and as a transit point given its strategic location. (closure earlier
    was unnecessary, must have actually been a mere cost-cutting measure)
    4. Finally, there was no basis for dismissing Asufrin instead of the other
    employees. He was not less preferred, less senior, etc.
    iii. The court found these circumstances analogous to a previous case also involving
    San Miguel Corporation, where they also reinstated the employee that was
    dismissed for a similar reason.
    1. The court stressed that although redundancy and retrenchment are
    valid basis for dismissal, these must observe the fundamentals of good
    faith, which was lacking in the decision SMC made.

    You might also like