Employee Rights in Business Sales: Philippine Supreme Court Upholds Security of Tenure

Protecting Employees During Business Ownership Changes: Security of Tenure is Key

TLDR; When a business is sold, employees are not automatically terminated. The new owner often inherits the responsibility to uphold existing employment contracts and labor standards. Quitclaims signed under duress or without full understanding of rights are invalid. This case emphasizes the Philippine legal system’s commitment to protecting workers’ rights during business transitions and ensuring due process in termination.

G.R. No. 96982, September 21, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine working for a company for decades, only to be suddenly told your services are no longer needed because the business has been sold. This scenario, unfortunately, is a reality for many Filipino workers. The sale or transfer of a business can create uncertainty and fear among employees about their job security and benefits. Do they lose their jobs? Is the new owner obligated to honor their existing employment terms? The Supreme Court case of Emiliano A. Rizada vs. National Labor Relations Commission addresses these critical questions, offering vital insights into the rights of employees during business ownership changes in the Philippines. At the heart of this case is the question of whether employees of Cebu Star Press were illegally dismissed when the business changed hands and whether the new owner, Emiliano Rizada, should be held liable for labor violations committed under the previous owner, Regino Alvarez.

LEGAL CONTEXT: SECURITY OF TENURE AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

Philippine labor law is strongly rooted in the principle of security of tenure. This constitutional right, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, guarantees that regular employees can only be dismissed for just or authorized causes and after due process. The Labor Code of the Philippines, specifically Article 294 (formerly Article 282), outlines the just causes for termination, which include serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duties, fraud or breach of trust, and commission of a crime or offense. Authorized causes, as defined in Articles 297 and 298 (formerly Articles 283 and 284), relate to business exigencies such as installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses, or closure or cessation of business operations.

Crucially, Article 292 (formerly Article 280) of the Labor Code defines regular employees as those who have been engaged to perform tasks usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, excluding probationary, casual, or project employees. The employees of Cebu Star Press, some with decades of service, undoubtedly fall under the category of regular employees, entitling them to security of tenure.

Furthermore, Philippine law views quitclaims and waivers with caution, especially in labor cases. Recognizing the unequal bargaining power between employers and employees, the Supreme Court has consistently held that quitclaims are often disfavored as they can be used to circumvent labor laws. As the Supreme Court stated in Peftok Integrated Services, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, “Pacta privata juri publico derogare non possunt. Private agreements (between parties) cannot derogate from public right.” This principle underscores that private agreements cannot override public policy, which in labor law, is the protection of workers’ rights.

The concept of due process in termination is also paramount. Procedural due process requires employers to provide employees with two written notices before termination: first, a notice of intent to dismiss outlining the grounds for termination, and second, a notice of termination after a hearing or opportunity to be heard, informing the employee of the decision to dismiss. Failure to comply with these notice requirements renders a dismissal illegal, even if just cause exists.

CASE BREAKDOWN: CEBU STAR PRESS AND THE FIGHT FOR LABOR RIGHTS

The story of Rizada vs. NLRC began when ten employees of Cebu Star Press, including typesetters, machine operators, and utility personnel, filed a complaint for violation of labor standards and illegal dismissal. These long-serving employees, some with over twenty years of tenure, alleged they were underpaid, denied benefits like minimum wage, ECOLA (Emergency Cost of Living Allowance), 13th-month pay, and service incentive leave, and were ultimately terminated without just cause when the printing press changed ownership.

Here’s a timeline of key events:

December 7, 1987: Employees file a complaint with the Regional Arbitration Branch, Region VII, Cebu City, against Cebu Star Press and Regino Alvarez.

November 28, 1987: Employees receive termination notices, effective November 30, 1987, just two days later.

November 30, 1987: Employees’ employment is terminated.

July 30, 1988: Emiliano Rizada finalizes the purchase of Cebu Star Press from Regino Alvarez.

August 11, 1989: Labor Arbiter rules in favor of the employees, ordering Cebu Star Press, Regino Alvarez, and Emiliano Rizada to pay separation pay, ECOLA, service incentive leave, and attorney’s fees.

October 10, 1990: National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirms the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

September 21, 1999: Supreme Court upholds the NLRC decision, finding the employees were illegally dismissed and holding Emiliano Rizada jointly and severally liable with Regino Alvarez.

The employers argued that the employees had signed quitclaims and waivers, releasing them from liability for past labor violations. They also contended that the termination was due to the change in ownership and that the new owner, Emiliano Rizada, should not be responsible for the liabilities of the previous owner, Regino Alvarez. However, the employees testified that they were made to sign blank vouchers and payroll forms and that the quitclaims were not explained to them and did not reflect the full extent of their rights.

The Supreme Court sided with the employees, emphasizing the principle that quitclaims are often viewed with disfavor and are ineffective in barring claims for workers’ legal rights, especially when signed under dubious circumstances. The Court gave credence to the employee’s testimony that they were made to sign blank documents as a standard procedure. Regarding the legality of the dismissal, the Court agreed with the NLRC that the employees were illegally terminated. The Court highlighted the insufficient notice period, stating, “Here, what was given was just a three-day notice before the employees’ termination on November 30, 1987. There was non-compliance with the indispensable requirement of one month-notice before termination.”

Crucially, the Supreme Court addressed the liability of the new owner, Emiliano Rizada. Rizada argued he should not be held responsible for the previous owner’s obligations. However, the Court cited the doctrine of corporate successor liability, stating, “the disposition of assets (sic), or change of ownership xxx of a business does not automatically terminate employer – employee relationship, especially when the purchaser xxx continued the integral business operation of the former management (employer) in an essentially unchanged manner…”. The Court found that Rizada continued the operations of Cebu Star Press and therefore inherited the responsibility for the existing employees and their claims. The Court pointed out that Rizada was aware of potential labor issues even before the sale, as evidenced by his requirement for employees to re-apply, further solidifying his responsibility.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING YOUR RIGHTS AND BUSINESS DURING OWNERSHIP TRANSITIONS

This case provides critical guidance for both employees and business owners in the Philippines:

For Employees:

Security of Tenure is Paramount: Your status as a regular employee is protected even when your company is sold. You cannot be automatically terminated simply because of a change in ownership.

Question Quitclaims: Be wary of signing quitclaims or waivers, especially if you feel pressured or don’t fully understand your rights. Seek legal advice if you are asked to sign such documents, particularly during business transitions.

Illegal Dismissal Remedies: If you believe you have been illegally dismissed, file a complaint for illegal dismissal promptly with the NLRC. Your actions to protest dismissal are crucial evidence against abandonment.

Due Process Rights: You are entitled to proper notice (at least one month) and a fair process before termination, even in cases of business sale.

For Business Owners (Buyers):

Due Diligence is Essential: Before purchasing a business, conduct thorough due diligence, including investigating potential labor liabilities.

Employee Liabilities Transfer: Be aware that as a new owner continuing the business operations, you may inherit the labor obligations of the previous owner, including claims for unpaid wages and benefits, and potential illegal dismissal cases.

Consult Legal Counsel: Seek legal advice during business acquisitions to understand your responsibilities to existing employees and to ensure a smooth and legally compliant transition.

Transparent Communication: Communicate openly with employees about the business sale and their employment status to avoid misunderstandings and potential labor disputes.

Key Lessons from Rizada vs. NLRC:

Business sales do not automatically terminate employment.

New business owners may inherit labor liabilities.

Quitclaims are strictly scrutinized and may be invalidated.

Due process is required for employee termination, even during business transitions.

Employees have the right to security of tenure and legal recourse against illegal dismissal.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

np>Q: Can my employer terminate me just because the company was sold to a new owner?

A: Generally, no. Under Philippine law, a change in business ownership is not automatically a just cause for termination. If the new owner continues the business operations, they often assume the responsibility for the existing employees. You are entitled to security of tenure.

Q: What should I do if my new employer asks me to sign a quitclaim as a condition for continued employment after a business sale?

A: Be very cautious. Quitclaims should be voluntary and entered into with full understanding of your rights. If you feel pressured or are unsure, do not sign immediately. Seek legal advice to understand the implications of the quitclaim and whether it fairly compensates you for your rights and past services.

Q: I was given a termination notice right after my company was bought by a new owner. Is this legal?

A: Possibly illegal. You are entitled to due process, including proper notice (usually one month) and a valid reason for termination, even during a business sale. A short notice period, like the three-day notice in the Rizada case, is likely insufficient. Consult with a labor lawyer to assess the legality of your termination.

Q: What kind of compensation am I entitled to if I am illegally dismissed due to a business sale?

A: If found illegally dismissed, you may be entitled to reinstatement to your former position without loss of seniority and other rights, full back wages from the time of dismissal until reinstatement, and potentially damages and attorney’s fees.

Q: As a business buyer, how can I protect myself from inheriting labor liabilities from the previous owner?

A: Conduct thorough due diligence before the purchase, including a review of the company’s labor practices and potential liabilities. Include provisions in the sale agreement that address labor liabilities. Consult with legal counsel specializing in labor law and corporate transactions to structure the acquisition in a way that minimizes your risks.

Q: Where can I file a complaint for illegal dismissal or labor violations in the Philippines?

A: You can file a complaint with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in the region where your workplace is located.

ASG Law specializes in Labor Law, Corporate Law, and Commercial Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

ASG Law