Supreme Court junks petition vs. NLRC, IT firm

The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition of an expelled Cebuano information programmer who filed a case against the National Labor Relations Commission in Cebu City and a Makati City-based IT company barely four years ago.

   In a decision penned by Associate Justice Arturo Brion, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeals committed no “reversible error in affirming the NLRC ruling that Talam was validly dismissed on the ground of retrenchment.”

   The high tribunal said that the petition of Francis Ray Talam against the NLRC Fourth Division and IT provider Software Factory, Inc. (TSFI) in 2006 was “unmeritorious” and thus, should be dismissed.

   Talam filed a petition for review in certiorari before the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition against NLRC and TSFI.

   In his first petition before NLRC, Talam alleged his dismissed from service on November 29, 2002 was illegal before TSFI did not comply with the requisites under Article 283 of the Labor Code for a valid retrenchment action.

   He demanded that TSFI pay him a service incentive leave pay, damages and attorney’s fees.

   TSFI, for its part, contended that the dismissal was valid, as retrenchment is one of the authorized causes under the Labor Code for termination of employment. The company also argued that NLRC-Cebu City lacked jurisdiction over the case since the petitioner’s workplace is in Makati City and not in Cebu City .

   Last Oct. 28, 2003, Executive Labor Arbiter Reynoso Belarmino ruled that Talam’s dismissal was illegal and ordered the TSFI to pay the petitioner his separation benefits, backwages and 13th month pay in the aggregate totaling to P260,560.

   The TSFI filed a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC Fourth Division, which later set aside the labor arbiter’s ruling.

   Talam appealed the NLRC’s ruling but the state agency denied it. He elevated his petition to the appellate court and accused the labor commission of allegedly committing grave abuse of discretion.

   The CA, in its decision dated July 31, 2006, however, denied Talam’s petition for lack of merit. The appellate court ruled that the petitioner’s retrenchment was valid.

   While Talam’s dismissal was authorized by law, the appellate court, however, said that TSFI is still liable for nominal damages for violation of the petitioner’s right to procedural process.

   With this, the CA affirmed with modification the NLRC decision and increased to P50,000 from P30,000 the nominal damages the NLRC had awarded to Talam.

   In its decision, the High Court ruled that the retrenchment had basis. “It was not simulated nor resorted to for the purpose of getting rid of employees,” the SC said.

The high tribunal also modified and deleted the award of nominal damages the appellate court earlier granted to Talam. — Jasmin U. Labaco/JMO