Short answer. The Labor Code allows termination for redundancy and requires written notice at least one month in advance, but its text does not itself address what happens if the same position is filled again shortly afterward. The article's specific anti-circumvention wording is tied to closures, not to redundancy, so it does not resolve this situation on its own.
What the law says
The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof.
Labor Code, Article 283 — Closure And Personnel Reduction. Read the full provision →
Redundancy is a listed, lawful ground
Article 283 lists redundancy as one of the grounds on which the employer may also terminate the employment of any employee, alongside labor-saving devices, retrenchment, and closure. Termination on this ground is not, by itself, unlawful — the article treats it the same way it treats the other three grounds, provided the notice requirement is met: written notice to the worker and to the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one month before the intended date.
Where the article's anti-circumvention wording actually sits
The article does contain a safeguard against bad faith, but it is worded around one specific ground: it excludes closures done for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title. That phrase is attached to the closing-or-cessation ground in the sentence's structure, not to redundancy. The article does not repeat an equivalent anti-circumvention clause for redundancy specifically, at least not in the text quoted here.
What that gap means for your situation
If your position was declared redundant and then someone was hired to do the same job days later, that pattern raises an obvious question about whether the redundancy was genuine — but Article 283's own wording does not spell out a test for that, the way it does for closures done to circumvent the law. This article establishes that redundancy is a valid ground and sets the notice and pay requirements; it does not itself describe what happens when the facts suggest the position was not actually eliminated.
What is worth documenting
Given that this article does not directly resolve the situation you describe, what matters is the paper trail: the written notice you received, its stated reason, the date given for the position's elimination, and evidence of who was hired afterward and when. Those facts are what would need to be examined against the redundancy claim, since Article 283's text alone does not settle whether a same-job rehire shortly after undoes the ground given for your termination.