Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I.
SEPARATION PAY
BACKGROUND
RA 1052 (OLD LAW)
GENERAL RULE: The employer may dismiss an employee with or without just cause
Condition: If dismissal was without just cause employer should:
(1.) Serve the 1-month advance notice on the employee, OR
(2.) Pay month salary for every year of service, whichever is longer.
NOTE:
- It was only the FAILURE to serve such notice that would render the
employer for separation pay (not the fact that the employment was severed
w/o just cause).
- Employer may only be liable for separation pay & moral damages, but the
dismissed employee could NOT demand REINSTATEMENT.
COMPUTATION
The salary base used in computing the separation pay should include:
1. Basic salary
2. Regular allowances
3. Transportation and Emergency allowance
but commissions may not be included or travels equivalent
valid but nevertheless required PLDT to give her 1-months pay for
every year of her 10years of service as financial assistance.
Affirmed by the NLRC, it further said that the EE is sufficiently
punished for her dismissal. The grant of financial assistance is not
intended as a reward for her offense, but merely to help her for the
loss of ENT after working faithfully for PLDT for 10yrs.
Financial assistance based on compassionate justice was granted
even to an EE who was not dismissed but who had to RETIRE w/o
being covered by the company retirement plan.
Does not arise from legal or illegal dismissal but from nonadversarial
mode of leaving ones ENT, such as RESIGNATION. The benefits
demandability depends on the terms of the
a. CBA
BACKWAGES
Represent compensation th
collected because of the unj
BACKWAGES
Refer to those earnings lost A
dismissal.
Usually ordered w/ reinstatem
: Except where the lower courts erroneous omission of the grant of backwages w/ a
finding of illegal dismissal has become final & executory on the failure of the
complainant to appeal the said decision. BUT in
St. Michaels Institute v Santos: The fact that the NLRC did not award backwages
to the EEs, or that they themselves did not appeal the NLRC decision does not
bar the CA from awarding backwages. The award of backwages is a mere logical
consequence of the finding that the EEs were illegally dismissed.
Dismissal shld be upheld, but the ER is liable for noncompliance w/ the procedural requirements of due process.
In the present case, the dismissal should be upheld because there was
abandonment on the part of the EEs. The ER however, did not follow the
notice requirements. Where the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of due
process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual.
However, ER should indemnify the EE for the violation of his statutory Rs.
The indemnity to be imposed shld be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent
practice of dismiss now, pay later. The sanction should be in the nature of
indemnification or penalty & shld depend on the facts of each case, taking
into special consideration the gravity of the due process violation. It should
be in the form of nominal damages. In this case, it is P30k.
Industrial Timber v Ababan: mentioned some other factors to consider in assessing
the penalty to the ER:
1. The authorized cause invoked, whether it was retrenchment, or a
closure/cessation of operation due to losses or otherwise;
2. The number of EEs to be awarded;
3. The capacity of the ERs to satisfy the awards, taking into account
their prevailing financial status as borne by the records;
4. The ERs grant of other termination benefits in favor of the EEs
Whether there was a bona fide attempt to comply w/ the notice requirements as
opposed to giving no notice at all.