Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Same; Same; Same; In allowing separation pay, the final decision effectively
declares that the employment relationship ended so that separation pay and
backwages are to be computed up to that point.Article 279 provides for the
consequences of illegal dismissal in no uncertain terms, qualified only by
jurisprudence in its interpretation of when separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is
allowed. When that happens, the finality of the illegal dismissal decision becomes
the reckoning point instead of the reinstatement that the law decrees. In allowing
separation pay, the final decision effectively declares that the employment
relationship ended so that separation pay and backwages are to be computed up to
that point. The decision also becomes a judgment for money from which another
consequence flowsthe payment of interest in case of delay. This was what the CA
correctly decreed when it provided for the payment of the legal interest of 12% from
the finality of the judgment, in accordance with our ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals.
Escario vs. National Labor Relations Commission 631 SCRA 263 (2010)
Same; Same; Social Justice; Separation Pay; To safeguard the spirit of social justice
that the Court has advocated in favor of the working man, the right to
reinstatement is to be considered renounced or waived only when the employee
unjustifiably or unreasonably refuses to return to work upon being so ordered or
after the employer has offered to reinstate him.The absence from an order of
reinstatement of an alternative relief should the employer or a supervening event
not within the control of the employee prevent reinstatement negates the very
purpose of the order. The judgment favorable to the employee is thereby reduced to
a mere paper victory, for it is all too easy for the employer to simply refuse to have
the employee back. To safeguard the spirit of social justice that the Court has
advocated in favor of the working man, therefore, the right to reinstatement is to be
considered renounced or waived only when the employee unjustifiably or
unreasonably refuses to return to work upon being so ordered or after the employer
has offered to reinstate him. However, separation pay is made an alternative relief
in lieu of reinstatement in certain circumstances, like: (a) when reinstatement can
no longer be effected in view of the passage of a long period of time or because of
the realities of the situation; (b) reinstatement is inimical to the employers interest;
(c) reinstatement is no longer feasible; (d) reinstatement does not serve the best
interests of the parties involved; (e) the employer is prejudiced by the workers
continued employment; (f) facts that make execution unjust or inequitable have
supervened; or (g) strained relations between the employer and employee.
Same; Same; Same; Same; It is not disputable that the grant of separation pay or
some other financial assistance to an employee is based on equity, which has been
defined as justice outside law, or as being ethical rather than jural and as belonging
to the sphere of morals than of law.Under the circumstances, the grant of
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement of the petitioners was proper. It is not
disputable that the grant of separation pay or some other financial assistance to an
employee is based on equity, which has been defined as justice outside law, or as
being ethical rather than jural and as belonging to the sphere of morals than of law.
This Court has granted separation pay as a measure of social justice even when an
employee has been validly dismissed, as long as the dismissal has not been due to
serious misconduct or reflective of personal integrity or morality.
Lopez vs. National Labor Relations Commission 297 SCRA 509 (1998)
Same; Same; Benefits; Illegally dismissed employees are entitled to reinstatement
and full backwages; If reinstatement is not possible, the employees are entitled to
the grant of separation pay and full backwages; Separation pay shall be granted as
an option to reinstatement if reinstatement can no longer be enforced due to the
strained relations between the parties brought about by the litigation in this case.
Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides that an employee who is
unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from
the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual
reinstatement. Pursuant to the said rule, illegally dismissed employees are entitled
to reinstatement and full backwages. The phraseology of the law means that both
reliefs are available to the illegally dismissed employee as a matter of course.
However, if reinstatement is not possible, the employees are entitled to the grant of
separation pay and full backwages. At this instance, it must be stressed that the
reliefs of separation pay and backwages are cumulative, not alternative remedies.
Not infrequently had this Court ruled that separation pay shall be granted as an
option to reinstatement if reinstatement can no longer be enforced due to the
strained relations between the parties brought about by the litigation in this case.
Personal animosities have been generated due to the attendant circumstances of
the case. Petitioner held much rancor in her heart against private respondents.
Since reinstatement would not be to the best interest of the parties, in lieu thereof,
the NLRC correctly awarded separation pay equivalent to one (1) months salary for
every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one
(1) whole year.
Sarona vs. National Labor Relations Commission 663 SCRA 395 (2012)
Labor Law; Separation Pay; Separation pay is computed from the commencement
of employment up to the time of termination, including the imputed service for
which the employee is entitled to backwages, with the salary rate prevailing at the
end of the period of putative service being the basis for computation.Effectively,
the petitioner cannot be deemed to have changed employers as Royale and
Sceptre are one and the same. His separation pay should, thus, be computed from
the date he was hired by Sceptre in April 1976 until the finality of this decision.
Based on this Courts ruling in Masagana Concrete Products, et al. v. NLRC, et al.,
the intervening period between the day an employee was illegally dismissed and
the day the decision finding him illegally dismissed becomes final and executory
shall be considered in the computation of his separation pay as a period of
imputed or putative service: Separation pay, equivalent to one months salary
for every year of service, is awarded as an alternative to reinstatement when the
latter is no longer an option. Separation pay is computed from the commencement
of employment up to the time of termination, including the imputed service for
which the employee is entitled to backwages, with the salary rate prevailing at the
end of the period of putative service being the basis for computation.
Same; Employee deemed in service not only when he was unjustly dismissed but
when he actually separated when reinstatement become impossible.The Court,
however, does not find the appellate courts computation of separation pay in order.
The appellate court considered respondent to have served petitioner company for
only eight years. Petitioner was hired in 1990, however, and he must be considered
to have been in the service not only until 1999, when he was unjustly dismissed, but
until June 30, 2005, the day he is deemed to have been actually separated (his
Baares vs. Tabaco Women's Transport Service Cooperative (TAWTRASCO) 694 SCRA
313 (2013)