Panlilio vs NLRC : 117459 : October 17, 1997 : J. Romero : Third Division
1 of 3
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/117459.htm
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 117459. October 17, 1997]
MOISES B. PANLILIO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (NLRC FIRST DIVISION) AND FINDSTAFF PLACEMENT
SERVICES, INC. AND OMAN SHERATON HOTEL, INC., respondents.
DECISION
ROMERO, J.:
Herein petitioner, unfazed by countless tales of overseas workers who embark
adventurously on trips to Promised Lands only to find themselves shortchanged, or worse
jobless, dares to trek the same path. His glorious dream lasted but six months when he was
peremptorily dismissed on the ground that his position had become redundant.
The facts as borne out by the records reveal that:
Petitioner Moises B. Panlilio was recruited by private respondent Findstaff Placement
Services (FPS) for employment in the Sheraton Hotel in Oman as Recreational Manager in
October 1991. The contract was for a period of two years with a monthly compensation of one
thousand one hundred dollars ($1,100.00). Petitioners good fortune, however, did not last long,
for in March 1992 his services were terminated on the ground that his position had become
redundant.
He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Adjudication Office of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) which was docketed as POEA Case No. (L)
92-03-551. After due trial, the POEA rendered a decision dated April 21, 1993 ruling that
petitioner was illegally dismissed on the premise that the alleged redundancy of his position was
not adequately proven.[1]
FPS filed an appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission. In its decision dated
April 19, 1994,[2] despite newly submitted affidavits from the officers of the Director of Personnel
and Training Division of Sheraton Hotel by FPS substantiating the redundancy of petitioners
position, the NLRC affirmed the POEAs decision and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
Undaunted by another setback, FPS filed a motion for reconsideration. To petitioners
surprise and dismay, the NLRC reversed itself and rendered a new decision[3] upholding the
validity of his dismissal on ground of redundancy. Hence, this petition.
Petitioner claims that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it reversed its original
ruling on the basis of the affidavits which it had earlier ruled out as self-serving and of no
evidentiary value.
After a careful study of the relevant facts, we are constrained to reverse the findings of the
NLRC.
In the case at bar, FPS failed to present substantial evidence to justify the dismissal of
petitioner on the ground of redundancy. The affidavits and documents it submitted are entitled to
little weight, for it does not prove the superfluity of petitioners position.[4] In fact, these documents
do not even present the necessary factors which would confirm that a position is indeed
redundant, such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business or dropping of a
1/25/2016 12:22 AM