4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly dated April 17, 2000. Not satisfied, petitioner sought recourse before the CA,[15] arguing that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion: (a) in holding that while Petrocon’s retrenchment was justified, Petrocon failed to observe the legal procedure for a valid retrenchment when, in fact, Petrocon did observe the legal procedural requirements for a valid implementation of its retrenchment scheme; and (b) in making an award under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 which is premised on a termination of employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, notwithstanding that NLRC itself found Petrocon’s retrenchment to be justified.[16] On January 8, 2004, the CA rendered the assailed Decision dismissing the petition, the decretal portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED and the impugned Decision dated October 29, 1999 and Resolution dated April 17, 2000 are AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.[17] In ruling in favor of the respondent, the CA agreed with the findings of the NLRC that retrenchment could be a valid cause to terminate respondent’s employment with Petrocon. Considering that there was a considerable reduction in Petrocon’s work allocation from Saudi Aramco, the reduction of its work personnel was a valid exercise of management prerogative to reduce the number of its personnel, particularly in those fields affected by the reduced work allocation from Saudi Aramco. However, although there was a valid ground for retrenchment, the same was implemented without complying with the requisites of a valid retrenchment. Also, the CA concluded that although the respondent was given a 30-day notice of his termination, there was no showing that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) was also sent a copy of the said notice as required by law. Moreover, the CA found that a perusal of the check payroll details would readily show that respondent was not paid his separation pay. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in the Resolution[18] dated May 12, 2004. Hence, the petition assigning the following errors: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54674 3/11