8/12/2019 Philippine Village Hotel vs NLRC

G.R. No. 105033 February 28, 1994

PHILIPPINE VILLAGE HOTEL, vs. NATIONAL LAOR RELATION! "O##I!!ION $!E"ON% %IVI!ION& AN%
T'PA! LO"AL "HAPTER NO. 13(2, )'ANITO A"'IN, #A#ERTA #ANG'AT, RA'L !ONON, ELGAR PE#I!,
ORLAN%O PARAG'I!ON, FER%INAN% VELA!"O, #I*E A!T'LERO, #AGNO %E"AL!O, NENITA ORO!EA,
)O!E TI#ING, ANTONIO #ANALILI, RO%ELIO +'ERIA a- RENAL%O !ANTO!,

FACTS: Private respondents were employees of petitioner Philippine Village Hotel. However, on May !, !"#, petitioner
had to $lose and totally dis$ontin%e its operations d%e to serio%s finan$ial and &%siness reverses res%lting in the
termination of the servi$es of its employees.

Thereafter, the Philippine Village Hotel 'mployees and (or)ers *nion filed against petitioner a $omplaint for separation
pay, %nfair la&or pra$ti$e and illegal lo$)+o%t. The a&or Ar&iter iss%ed and -rder finding the losses s%ffered &y petitioner
to &e a$t%al, gen%ine and of s%$h magnit%de as to validly terminate the servi$es of private respondents &%t dire$ted
petitioner to give priority to the $omplainants /herein private respondents0 in 1the2 hiring of personnel sho%ld they res%me
their &%siness operations in the f%t%re.

The 34C affirmed the validity of the $los%re of petitioner &%t ordered petitioner to pay private respondent separation pay
at the rate of 56 month pay every year of servi$e. However, there is nothing in the re$ords to show that private
respondents re$eived their separation pay.

Petitioner de$ided to have a one /0 month dry+r%n operation to as$ertain the feasi&ility of res%ming its &%siness
operations. 7n order to $arry o%t its dry+r%n operation, petitioner hired $as%al wor)ers, in$l%ding private respondents, for a
one /0 month period, or from Fe&r%ary , !"! to Mar$h , !"!, as eviden$ed &y the latter8s Contra$t of 'mployment. 
 After eval%ating the individ%al performan$e of all the employees and %pon the lapse of the $ontra$t%al one+month period
or on Mar$h 6, !"!, petitioner terminated the servi$es of private respondents.

Private respondents and T%pas o$al Chapter 3o. 9#6 filed a $omplaint against petitioner for illegal dismissal and %nfair
la&or pra$ti$e with the 34C+3C4 Ar&itration ran$h whi$h was dismissed. -n appeal to 34C, it reversed the de$ision
of the a&or Ar&iter and ordered to reinstate the a&ove+named $omplainants to their former or s%&stantially e;%ivalent
positions witho%t loss of seniority rights pl%s f%ll &a$)wages from the time they were a$t%ally dismissed on <6 Mar$h !"!
%p to the time of their a$t%al reinstatement.

7SS*' : (hether or not the private respondendts are deemed to &e reg%lar employees

4*73=: 7n the instant $ase, private respondents were validly terminated &y the petitioner when the latter had to $lose its
&%siness d%e to finan$ial losses. Following the dire$tives of the 34C to give priority in hiring private respondents sho%ld
it res%me its &%siness, petitioner hired private respondents d%ring their one /0 month dry+r%n operation. However, this
does not mean that private respondents were deemed to have $ontin%ed their reg%lar employment stat%s, whi$h they had
en>oyed &efore their aforementioned termination d%e to petitioner8s finan$ial losses. As stated &y the a&or Ar&iter in his
de$ision:

7t sho%ld &e &orne in mind that when $omplainants were first terminated as a res%lt of the $ompany8s $essation from
operation in May, !"# the employer+employee relationship &etween the parties herein was totally and $ompletely

severed. S%$hit&eing
respondents0 madethethem$ase, respondent
$as%al and for aa$ted wellperiod.
spe$ifi$ within The
its dis$retion whenare
$omplainants in rehiring thethan
no &etter $omplainants /herein private
the new employees of
respondent /petitioner0 for the matter of what stat%s or designation to &e given them e?$l%sively rests in the dis$retion of
management. 8

The prior employment whi$h was terminated $annot &e >oined or ta$)ed to the new employment for p%rposes of se$%rity
of ten%re.

(hile it is tr%e that se$%rity of ten%re is a $onstit%tionally g%aranteed right of the employees, it does not, however, mean
perpet%al employment for the employee &e$a%se o%r law, while affording prote$tion to the employee, does not a%thori@e
oppression or destr%$tion of an employer. The ;%estioned of the order of 34C is here&y S'T AS7'.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/philippine-village-hotel-vs-nlrc 1/1