Redundancy Program Requisites for Validity
Redundancy exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the business enterprise. A position is redundant where it had become superfluous. Superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors such as over-hiring of workers, decrease in volume of business, or dropping a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise. (3M Philippines, Inc. vs. Yuseco, G.R. No. 248941, November 09, 2020)
A valid redundancy program must comply with the following requisites:
(a) written notice served on both the employees and the DOLE at least one (1) month prior to the intended date of termination of employment;
(b) payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service;
(c) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and
(d) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished, taking into consideration such factors as (i) preferred status; (ii) efficiency; and (iii) seniority, among others.
In one case involving PLDT, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the NLRC of the validity of the separation of employee due to redundancy based on the documentary proofs. (Soriano v. NLRC, et al.)
In upholding the legality of dismissal from work, the NLRC relied on the documents submitted by the
Acquire Mastery of HR/Labor Doctrines, Rules and Principles with Atty. Elvin’s HR Bundle Books at Discounted Rate
respondent PLDT showing compliance with the requirements above stated, to wit: 1) a letter notifying the Director of the DOLE-NCR of the impending termination from work of the petitioner by reason of redundancy and stating the grounds/reasons for the implementation of the redundancy program; 2) a letter apprising the petitioner of his dismissal from employment due to redundancy; 3) a receipt certifying that the petitioner had already received his separation pay from the respondent PLDT; 4) a release/waiver/quitclaim executed by the petitioner in favor of the respondent PLDT; and 5) affidavits executed by the officers of the respondent PLDT explaining the reasons and necessities for the implementation of the redundancy program. Petitioner failed to question, impeach or refute the existence, genuineness, and validity of these documents.
The SC said that it is clear that the foregoing documentary evidence constituted substantial evidence to 
support the findings of Labor Arbiter Lustria and the NLRC that employee’s employment was terminated by the company PLDT due to a valid or legal redundancy program since substantial evidence merely refers to that amount of evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin 
Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:
Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:
Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing