WILTSHIRE FILE V. NLRC (LABOR)

FACTS: Ong was dismissed because of serious business losses. In the termination letter, the ground alleged was redundancy of the position. Ong countered that there could be no redundancy because nobody except him in the company was then performing the same duties.

HELD: Dismissal was valid. The losses were proven by the company and most importantly, company finally closed its doors and terminated all its operations. SC considered that finally shutting down business operations constitutes strong confirmatory evidence of financial distress.

REDUNDANCY exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. That no other person was holding the same position that employee held does not show that his position had not become redundant.

The characterization of employee's services as no longer necessary or sustainable and therefore, properly terminable, was a valid exercise of BUSINESS JUDGMENT on the part of the employer.

The determination of the continuing necessity of a particular officer or position in a business corporation is MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE, and the courts will not interfere with the exercise of such so long as no abuse of discretion or merely arbitrary or malicious action on the part of the management is shown.