UICHICO V. NLRC (LABOR)

FACTS: The case is an illegal dismissal case filed by workers of Crispa who were terminated on the ground of retrenchment due to alleged serious business losses suffered by the company.

HELD: The Statement of Profits and Losses submitted by Crispa to prove its alleged losses, without the accompanying signature of a CPA or without being audited by an independent auditor, is not credible. This is not the kind of sufficient and convincing evidence necessary to discharge the burden of proof required to establish the alleged losses suffered by Crispa.

The corporate directors and officers of Crispa are SOLIDARILY LIABLE with the corporation for the termination of employment done with malice or in bad faith. In this case, it is undisputed that they have a direct hand in the illegal dismissal of respondent employees.

The law employees the right of every business entity to reduce its work force if the same is made necessary by compelling economic factors which would endanger its existence or stability. In spite of overwhelming support granted by the social justice provisions of our Constitution in favor of labor, the fundamental law itself guarantees, even during the process of tilting the scales of social justice towards workers and employees the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investment and to expansion and growth.