"When defendant-appellant was faced with the world-wide recession of the airline industry resulting in a slow down in the company's growth particularly in the regional operation (Asian Area) where the Airbus 300 operates. It had no choice but to adopt cost cutting measures, such as cutting down services, number of frequencies of flights, and reduction of the number of flying points for the A-300 fleet (t.s.n., July 6, 1988, pp. 1718). As a result, defendant-appellant had to layoff A-300 pilots, including plaintiff-appellee, which it found to be in excess of what is reasonably needed."14[14] All these considered, we find sufficient factual and legal basis to conclude that petitioner's termination from employment was for an authorized cause, for which he was given ample notice and opportunity to be heard, by respondent company. No error nor grave abuse of discretion, therefore, could be attributed to respondent appellate court. Sppedsc ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. CV No. 34476 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. 14[14] Id. at 37.