(8). AIRENE UNERA, et al. V. SHIN HEUNG ELECTRO DIGITAL, INC, et. al.

March 11, 2020, J. Zalameda

DOCTRINE:
A company's decision to resume part of its previous operation does not automatically negate good faith in its prior action
to close shop. The circumstances leading to the company's closure should properly be evaluated to determine whether it
was done in good faith or otherwise resulting in the circumvention of the rights of its workers. Thus, when the employer
satisfactorily proved economic or business losses with sufficient supporting evidence and have complied with the
requirements mandated under the law to justify retrenchment, as in this case, it cannot be said that the subsequent acts of
the employer to re-hire the retrenched employees or to hire new employees constitute bad faith. It could have been
different if from the beginning the retrenchment was illegal and the employer subsequently hired new employees or
rehired some of the previously dismissed employees because that would have constituted bad faith.

As long as no arbitrary or malicious action on the part of the employer is shown, the wisdom of a business judgment to
implement a cost saving device is beyond the court's determination. After all, the free will of management to conduct its
own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.

CASE SUMMARY:
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal closure of establishment with claims for reinstatement on the ground that Shin
Heung, a company engaged in the manufacture of computer parts exclusively for Smart Electronics Manufacturing
Service Philippines, Inc. (SEPHIL), was initially forced to reduce its labor force from 2000 to 991 employees and
eventually decided to close shop after SEPHIL formally terminated its contract with Shin Heung, resulting into the latter
suffering from continuous business losses and terminating all its employees. However, before the scheduled closure of
Shin Heung, it then sent a letter to DOLE recalling its earlier notice of closure, claiming that as it (Shin Heung) found no
interested buyers nor investors for its properties, it then decided to start anew as it found new clients. Petitioners claimed
that the resumption of business operations after their dismissals show bad faith on the part of Shin Heung.
The Labor Arbiter confirmed validity of petitioners’ dismissal due to authorized cause of closure of business. NLRC
reversed and declared petitioners’ dismissal as illegal and ordered to reinstate the petitioners. On appeal, CA reversed the
Decision and reinstated the LA’s Decision, it found that the decision to close business was not tainted with bad faith. SC
found the actions of Shing Heung leading to its closure as valid and found no unlawful or dishonest motive to circumvent
the right of the workers as evidenced by the substantial losses suffered and the audited financial statements. What the
Court sees is a company struggling to stay afloat or trying to get by. There is no indication to defraud its employees of any
of their deserving rights. In fact, the company took a loan to pay its employees separation pay despite the rule that
dispenses with such payment when the cause for closure of business is due to serious losses. Also, the resumption of
Shing Heung’s operation was limited to certain sections/department of the company and the re-hired workers were
immediately given, on their first day of work, the status of regular employees.

FACTS:
Shin Heung is a company engaged in the manufacture of computer parts exclusive for SEPHIL. Due to dwindling sales
and decreasing use of their manufactured product, Shing Heung was initially forced to reduce its labor force from 2000 to
991 employees, and, eventually, it decided to close shop after SEPHIL formally terminated its contract with the company.
It then issued a Memorandum informing its employees of the company’s impending closure due to business losses. It also
informed the DOLE of its intent to completely close operations.

Subsequently, a number of Shin Heung’s properties were later sold and the company even took a loan to pay all its
employees separation pay. However, before its scheduled closure, Shing Heung sent another letter to the DOLE to recall
its earlier notice of closure claiming that as they have “found no interested buyer nor investor as of this date but luckily,
we found new clients within the Philippines and from other parts of the world such as Canon, Brother, Panasonic, etc.
Thus, our company stockholders decided to infuse more capital, sufficient to start a full blast production operation and
specially that we still have our manpower, machineries and building ready and available for operation.” As there are
limited orders, the company resumed operations over a small portion of the business to alleviate losses. It also leased 80%
of its company premises.
Claiming that the closure was a disguise to circumvent their tenurial rights, petitioners, as previous employees, filed
separate complaints for illegal closure of establishment with claims for reinstatement, and other monetary claims.
Petitioners also alleged that Shin Heung was in evident bad faith when it resumed business operations after their
dismissals.

Labor Arbiter confirmed the validity of petitioners’ dismissal due to the authorized cause of closure of business. On
appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and declared petitioners’ dismissal as illegal and ordered Shin
Heung to reinstate and pay petitioners. The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, ruled in favor of Shin Heung, reinstating
the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. Court of Appeals ruled that Shin Heung's decision to close its business was not tainted
with bad faith considering the termination of contract with its sole client, the heavy losses it incurred as evidenced by
audited financial statements, and the lack of any labor-related union activities that may precipitate a fabricated closure of
the company.

ISSUE: Whether the closure or cessation of Shin Heung’s business and its subsequent resumption was bone fide or done
in good faith – YES

RULING:
A careful review of the records show that Shin Heung's intention was to totally close the business. In fact, all of Shin
Heung's employees, including its president, were dismissed. In the present case, there is no indication that Shin Heung
was impelled by any unlawful or dishonest motive aimed to circumvent the rights of its workers. To recall, Shin Heung's
sole client for its manufactured products terminated its agreement with the company. Prior to this, the company had
already reduced its manpower from 2000 to 991 due to declining sales. The substantial losses suffered by the company are
also supported by audited financial statements covering the years 2010 to 2013, as well as findings of an independent
auditor. With the declining demand for its manufactured product and the pullout of its sole client, Shin Heung was left
with no other option but to close shop. Its decision to do so was clearly communicated to stakeholders months before the
target date. Accordingly, the company sold its equipment and other assets. It, however, found it difficult to find a buyer
for its real estate prompting it to lease a large part of the premises to generate more income.

What the Court sees is a company struggling to stay afloat or trying to get by. There is no indication to defraud its
employees of any of their deserving rights. In fact, the company took a loan to pay its employees separation pay despite
the rule that dispenses with such payment when the cause for closure of business is due to serious losses. To be clear, the
resumption of Shin Heung's operations was limited to the press, injection and mold section of the company. It rehired its
previous employees who were working in the said sections based on their availability to immediately return to work.
Moreover, the re-hired workers were given the status of regular employees immediately upon their first day of work.

The Court also applied the case of Beralde v. Lapanday Agricultural and Development Court, wherein it was ruled therein
that:
Business enterprises today are faced with the pressures of economic recession, stiff competition, and labor
unrest. Thus, businessmen are always pressured to adopt certain changes and programs in order to enhance
their profits and protect their investments. Such changes may take various forms. Management may even
choose to close a branch, a department, a plant, or a shop.
xxx Thus, when the employer satisfactorily proved economic or business losses with sufficient supporting
evidence and have complied with the requirements mandated under the law to justify retrenchment, as in this
case, it cannot be said that the subsequent acts of the employer to re-hire the retrenched employees or to hire
new employees constitute bad faith. xxx

Similarly, Shin Heung had already sufficiently proven substantial business losses on its part thereby necessitating the
closure of the company. Its decision to continue a part of its previous operations did not negate good faith in its decision
to close shop, but is seen as an exercise of its right to continue its business. As long as no arbitrary or malicious action on
the part of the employer is shown, the wisdom of a business judgment to implement a cost saving device is beyond the
court's determination. After all, the free will of management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose
cannot be denied.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 23 May 2016 and
Resolution dated 04 November 2016 promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 142008 are AFFIRMED.
NOTES: