Parts of this answer could not be checked against its sources. Read the law and the decisions in their tabs before relying on it.
Held
No, Ana and Aileen were not illegally dismissed if FJD Publishing Company complied with the requirements for termination due to redundancy, under Article 294 of the Labor Code and Article 298, and as explained in Mejila v. Wrigley Philippines and Mcconnell Dowell Phils v. Bernal.
Explanation
The Labor Code prohibits termination of regular employees except for just or authorized causes, and requires due process in all cases. Redundancy is an authorized cause of termination when the employer installs labor-saving devices or restructures the workforce to prevent losses. The employer must serve a written notice to the affected employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least 30 days before the termination date, specifying the grounds for termination. The affected employees must be paid separation pay equivalent to at least one month’s salary or one month per year of service, whichever is higher.
Redundancy means that a position is superfluous or no longer necessary due to changes in business operations, such as adopting AI tools that reduce the need for certain editors. The employer’s decision to declare positions redundant is a management prerogative and business judgment, which courts will not question unless there is evidence of bad faith, arbitrariness, or illegality. The employer must show good faith by presenting evidence of a valid redundancy program, including the criteria used to select which positions are abolished.
Due process requires that the employees receive written notice of termination and the reasons for it, and that the employer gives them a reasonable opportunity to be heard or explain their side. The employer may also pay the employees during the notice period and allow them not to report to work, known as "garden leave," without it being illegal dismissal.
Application to the facts
FJD Publishing Company decided to reduce its editors from 20 to 10 by adopting AI tools to cut editing time and costs. The HR Department served notices of termination to 10 editors, including Ana and Aileen, informing them that their positions were abolished and that their employment would cease one month after receipt of the notice. They were also informed about their final pay and separation pay, and were allowed not to report to work during the notice period while still receiving their salaries.
This scenario may fit the authorized cause of termination due to redundancy caused by the installation of labor-saving devices (AI tools). However, based on the facts given, it is only established that the company served written notices to the affected editors, informing them of the abolition of their positions and the cessation of their employment one month after receipt of the notice. There is no information that notice was served to the DOLE, nor that separation pay was actually paid, only that the editors were informed to coordinate for its release. Thus, it cannot be concluded from the facts that all procedural and substantive requirements for a valid redundancy dismissal were met.
There is no indication that FJD acted in bad faith or arbitrarily in selecting which editors to retain or terminate. The notices informed the employees of the grounds for termination and allowed them to prepare for the transition. The practice of not requiring the dismissed editors to report to work during the notice period, while still paying their salaries, is a lawful "garden leave" and does not constitute illegal dismissal.
- unverified (unsupported_fact): The answer assumes compliance with the requirement of notice to DOLE, but the QUESTION does not state that such notice was given.
- unverified (unsupported_fact): The answer assumes that fair and reasonable criteria were used in selecting the employees to be terminated, but the QUESTION does not establish what criteria, if any, were used.
"In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and 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."
"The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking ... by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every ye…
"In all cases of termination of employment, the standards of due process laid down in Article 299 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended, and settled jurisprudence on the matter, must be observed as follows: ... 5.3 Termination of Employment Based on Authorized Causes. As defined in Articles 298 and 299 of the Labor Code, as amended, the requirements of due process shall be deemed complied with upon service of a written notice to the employee and the appropriate Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least thirty days (30) before the effectivity of the termination, specifying the ground or…
Laws retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.
- Article 294, Labor Relations
- Section 5, Issuances of the Department of Labor and Employment and its Attached Agencies
- Section 46, Code of Agrarian Reforms
- Section 6, Issuances of the Department of Labor and Employment and its Attached Agencies
- Section 2, Issuances of the Department of Labor and Employment and its Attached Agencies
- Article 292, Labor Relations
In Mcconnell Dowell Phils v. Bernal, the Supreme Court explained that for redundancy to be a valid cause of termination, the employer must serve written notice to both the employee and the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of termination, pay separation pay, act in good faith in abolishing the redundant position, and use fair and reasonable criteria in determining which positions are to be declared redundant. The employer must present evidence that a review was conducted and that specific criteria were used in selecting the employees affected by the redundancy. If these are not shown, the termination cannot be sustained.
"The Labor Code recognizes redundancy as an authorized cause for the termination of employment. ... Succinctly put, 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. The employer has no legal obligation to keep in its payroll more employees than are necessary for the operation of its business. ... The determination that the employee's services are no lon…
Cases retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.