Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ZENAIDA GACO v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 160982 2013-06-26	MANILA JOCKEY CLUB v. AIMEE O. TRAJANO BERSAMIN, J.
Applying the foregoing to this case, the Court concludes that the reinstatement of Trajano is no longer feasible. More than 14 years have already passed since she initiated her complaint for illegal dismissal in 1998, filing her position paper on September 3, 1998,[53] before the Court could finally resolve her case. The lapse of that long time has rendered her reinstatement an impractical, if not an impossible, option for both her and MJCI. Consequently, an award of separation pay has become the practical alternative, computed at one month pay for every year of service.[54]
	GR No. 172670 2009-01-20	RBC CABLE MASTER SYSTEM v. MARCIAL BALUYOT PUNO, J.
Finally, an employee who is illegally dismissed is entitled to the twin reliefs of full backwages and reinstatement. If reinstatement is not viable, separation pay is awarded to the employee.[17] In awarding separation pay to an illegally dismissed employee, in lieu of reinstatement, the amount to be awarded shall be equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service.[18] Under Republic Act No. 6715, employees who are illegally dismissed are entitled to full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time their actual compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement but if reinstatement is no longer possible, the backwages shall be computed from the time of their illegal termination up to the finality of the decision.[19]
	GR NO. 168096 2007-08-28	ALEX B. CARLOS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The question now arises: when is the period for computation of backwages and separation pay supposed to end? This question was squarely addressed in Gaco v. National Labor Relations Commission[23] where it was held that in such circumstance, the computation shall be up to the time of finality of this Court's decision. Apparently, the justification is that along with the finality of this Court's decision, the issue of illegal dismissal is finally laid to rest.[24]
	GR NO. 169299 2006-06-16	EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILS. v. MARIA CHARINA DIAMSE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In view of the foregoing, Diamse is entitled to the payment of full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent,[32] computed from the date of her dismissal on February 5, 2002 up to the finality of this decision, and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one month salary for every year of service,[33] computed from the time of her engagement by ETPI on February 16, 1998 up to the finality of the decision.
	GR NO. 158758 2005-04-29	P.J. LHUILLIER INC. v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In fine, we find no compelling reason to disturb the findings of fact respecting the illegality of Herminia Montenegro's dismissal. We, however, deem it necessary to modify the award of the separation pay in lieu of reinstatement in the amount of one-half month for every year of service, granted by the NLRC, to one month pay for every year of service. In the case of Gaco v. NLRC,[32] we said: Again, we sustain the ruling of the Labor Arbiter granting separation pay in the amount of one (1) month pay for every year of service. This has been our consistent ruling in numerous decisions awarding separation pay to an illegally dismissed employee in lieu of reinstatement. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of 29 August 2002 of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution of 06 June 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 68924 are hereby AFFIRMED subject to the MODIFICATION that separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement, be computed at one month pay for every year of service. No costs.
	GR No. 148241 2002-09-27	HANTEX TRADING CO. v. CA BELLOSILLO, J.
his actual reinstatement. These remedies give life to the workers' constitutional right to security of tenure. However, under the circumstances, reinstatement would be impractical and would hardly promote the best interest of the parties. As heretofore discussed, the resentment and enmity between HANTEX and Singson which culminated in and was compounded by the illegal dismissal suit necessarily strained the relationship between them or even provoked antipathy and antagonism. Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative. This has been our consistent ruling in the award of separation pay to illegally dismissed employees in lieu of reinstatement.[11] WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed decision dated 23 October 2000 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Petitioners Hantex Trading Co., Inc., and Mariano Chua are directed jointly and severally to pay respondent Bernardo Singson separation pay