Declaratory Relief as a Remedy to Question a Law's Constitutionality

"Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person interested in a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, executive order or resolution, to determine any question of construction or validity arising from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute, and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. The only issue that may be raised in such a petition is the question of construction or validity of the provisions in an instrument or statute." (Ferrer, et. al. v. Mayor Sulpicio Roco, et. al., G.R. No. 174129 [2010])

"Case law states that the following are the requisites for an action for declaratory relief:

first, the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance; second, the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction; third, there must have been no breach of the documents in question; fourth, there must be an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one between persons whose interests are adverse; fifth, the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and sixth, adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding.

Based on a judicious review of the records, the Court observes that while the first, second, and third requirements appear to exist in this case, the fourth, fifth, and sixth requirements, however, remain wanting.

As to the fourth requisite, there is serious doubt that an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one exists in this case.

Pertinently, a justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory. Corollary thereto, by "ripening seeds" it is meant, not that sufficient accrued facts may be dispensed with, but that a dispute may be tried at its inception before it has accumulated the asperity, distemper, animosity, passion, and violence of a full blown battle that looms ahead. The concept describes a state of facts indicating imminent and inevitable litigation provided that the issue is not settled and stabilized by tranquilizing declaration.

A perusal of private respondents’ petition for declaratory relief would show that they have failed to demonstrate how they are left to sustain or are in immediate danger to sustain some direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the assailed provisions of RA 9372. Not far removed from the factual milieu in the Southern Hemisphere cases, private respondents only assert general interests as citizens, and taxpayers and infractions which the government could prospectively commit if the enforcement of the said law would remain untrammeled. As their petition would disclose, private respondents’ fear of prosecution was solely based on remarks of certain government officials which were addressed to the general public. They, however, failed to show how these remarks tended towards any prosecutorial or governmental action geared towards the implementation of RA 9372 against them. In other words, there was no particular, real or imminent threat to any of them. As held in Southern Hemisphere:

Without any justiciable controversy, the petitions have become pleas for declaratory relief, over which the Court has no original jurisdiction. Then again, declaratory actions characterized by "double contingency," where both the activity the petitioners intend to undertake and the anticipated reaction to it of a public official are merely theorized, lie beyond judicial review for lack of ripeness.

The possibility of abuse in the implementation of RA 9372does not avail to take the present petitions out of the realm of the surreal and merely imagined. Such possibility is not peculiar to RA 9372 since the exercise of any power granted by law may be abused. Allegations of abuse must be anchored on real events before courts may step in to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.

Thus, in the same light that the Court dismissed the SC petitions in the Southern Hemisphere cases on the basis of, among others, lack of actual justiciable controversy (or the ripening seeds of one), the RTC should have dismissed private respondents’ petition for declaratory relief all the same.

It is well to note that private respondents also lack the required locus standi to mount their constitutional challenge against the implementation of the above-stated provisions of RA 9372 since they have not shown any direct and personal interest in the case. While it has been previously held that transcendental public importance dispenses with the requirement that the petitioner has experienced or is in actual danger of suffering direct and personal injury, it must be stressed that cases involving the constitutionality of penal legislation belong to an altogether different genus of constitutional litigation. Towards this end, compelling State and societal interests in the proscription of harmful conduct necessitate a closer judicial scrutiny of locus standi, as in this case. To rule otherwise, would be to corrupt the settled doctrine of locus standi, as every worthy cause is an interest shared by the general public.

As to the fifth requisite for an action for declaratory relief, neither can it be inferred that the controversy at hand is ripe for adjudication since the possibility of abuse, based on the above-discussed allegations in private respondents’ petition, remain highly-speculative and merely theorized. It is well-settled that a question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. This private respondents failed to demonstrate in the case at bar.

Finally, as regards the sixth requisite, the Court finds it irrelevant to proceed with a discussion on the availability of adequate reliefs since no impending threat or injury to the private respondents exists in the first place.

All told, in view of the absence of the fourth and fifth requisites for an action for declaratory relief, as well as the irrelevance of the sixth requisite, private respondents’ petition for declaratory relief should have been dismissed. Thus, by giving due course to the same, it cannot be gainsaid that the RTC gravely abused its discretion.” (Republic of the Philippines v. Herminio Harry Roque, et. al., G.R. No. 204603 [2013])

  

Less painful means of saving on labor costs

It is the employer’s prerogative to save on labor costs, especially during uncertain or turbulent times, such as this Covid-19 pandemic. It may resort to retrenchment or closure or cessation of business. However, depending on certain crucial factors, an employer may still opt for less drastic measures.

Reduction of working hours is the least painful and more palatable to employees. Before its implementation, the employer must take into consideration the following: the arrangement was temporary, it was a more humane solution instead of retrenchment of personnel, there was notice and consultations with the workers and supervisors, a consensus were reached on how to deal with deteriorating economic conditions and it was sufficiently proven that the company was suffering from losses.

On the other hand, “lay-off” is an act of the employer of dismissing employees because of losses in the operation, lack of work, and considerable reduction on the volume of its business. However, a lay-off must only be temporary. It should not last longer than six (6) months. After the period of six (6) months, the employees should either then be recalled to work or permanently retrenched following the requirements of the law.

The employer must also act in good faith, that is, one which is intended for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under the law or under valid agreements.

In both cases, failure to comply with any of said requirements would be tantamount to dismissing the employees, making the employer responsible for such dismissal.

Retrenchment as an authorized cause for termination

In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, businesses are understandably looking for ways to protect their bottom-line. Retrenchment of employees is among the first things that would come to their minds. But not so fast. 

According to the Supreme Court, retrenchment is an act of the employer of reducing the work force because of losses in the operation of the enterprise, lack of work, or considerable reduction on the volume of business. It is, in many ways, a measure of last resort when other less drastic means have been tried and found to be inadequate. 

The Labor Code recognizes retrenchment as an authorized cause for terminating employment. It is an option validly available to an employer to address losses in the operation of the enterprise, lack of work, or considerable reduction on the volume of business. Retrenchment is normally resorted to by management during periods of business reverses and economic difficulties occasioned by such events as recession, industrial depression, or seasonal fluctuations.

While a legitimate business option, retrenchment may only be exercised in compliance with substantive and procedural requisites.

As to the substantive requisites, an employer must show: 

First, that the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer;

Second, that it exercises its prerogative to retrench employees in good faith for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure; and

Third, that it used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees, such as status (i.e., whether they are temporary, casual, regular or managerial employees), efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.

Procedurally, an employer must:

Serve a written notice both to the employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; and

Pay the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least 1/2 month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. (G. R. No. 214744)

Without complying with these requirements, such retrenchment may be considered invalid and tantamount to illegal dismissal, placing the employer into further and much prohibitive financial risks.