Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE v. NLRC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 198465 2015-04-22	LITEX GLASS v. DOMINADOR B. SANCHEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
As stated, "an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right."[33] But when an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism has already strained the relations between the employer and employee, separation pay is to be awarded as reinstatement can no longer be equitably effected.[34]
	GR No. 204761 2014-04-02	EMERITUS SECURITY v. JANRIE C. DAILIG CARPIO, J.
Thus, reinstatement is the general rule, while the award of separation pay is the exception. The circumstances warranting the grant of separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement, are laid down by the Court in Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[12] thus: Over time, the following reasons have been advanced by the Court for denying reinstatement under the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto; that reinstatement can no longer be effected in view of the long passage of time (22 years of litigation) or because of the realities of the situation; or that it would be 'inimical to the employer's interest;' or that reinstatement may no longer be feasible; or, that it will not serve the best interests of the parties involved; or that the company would be prejudiced by the workers' continued employment; or that it will not serve any prudent purpose as when supervening facts have transpired which make execution on that score unjust or inequitable or, to an increasing extent, due to the resultant atmosphere of 'antipathy and antagonism' or 'strained relations' or 'irretrievable estrangement' between the employer and the employee.
	GR No. 192394 2013-07-03	ROY D. PASOS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We agree with petitioner that there was no basis for the Labor Arbiter's finding of strained relations and order of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. This was neither alleged nor proved. Moreover, it has long been settled that the doctrine of strained relations should be strictly applied so as not to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his right to reinstatement. As held in Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. NLRC:[38]
	GR No. 172624 2011-12-05	PABLO POLSOTIN v. DE GUIA ENTERPRISES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Indeed, labor tribunals are mandated to use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily, objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure. [27] However, in every proceeding before it, the fundamental and essential requirements of due process should not to be ignored but must at all times be respected. [28] Besides, petitioners' case concerns their job, considered as a property right, of which they could not be deprived of without due process. [29]
	GR No. 167706 2009-11-05	REYNALDO G. CABIGTING v. SAN MIGUEL FOODS PERALTA, J.
In Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[31] this Court discussed the limitations and qualifications for the application of the "strained relations" principle, in this wise: x x x If, in the wisdom of the Court, there may be a ground or grounds for non-application of the above-cited provision, this should be by way of exception, such as when the reinstatement may be inadmissible due to ensuing strained relations between the employer and the employee.
	GR NO. 170087 2006-08-31	ANGELINA FRANCISCO v. NLRC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The corporation constructively dismissed petitioner when it reduced her salary by P2,500 a month from January to September 2001. This amounts to an illegal termination of employment, where the petitioner is entitled to full backwages. Since the position of petitioner as accountant is one of trust and confidence, and under the principle of strained relations, petitioner is further entitled to separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement.[34]
	GR NO. 137863 2005-03-31	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The petitioners, on the other hand, posit that the material incidents of the case at bar are but confined or personal to the individual respondents Delfin Santos and Carlos Fragante. The other respondents, namely Alberto Jugo and Oscar Contreras were impleaded merely because of their position in respondent BPI's Human Resources Department. In the words of the petitioners, "the controversy was a personal matter between Ms. Uy and Messrs. Delfin Santos and Carlos Fragante."[21] In addition, they bolstered their position by relying on what this Court had to say in Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. NLRC:[22]