This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-06-26 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In case the reinstatement is no longer possible, however, an award of separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement, will be justified.[48] The Court has ruled that reinstatement is no longer possible: (a) when the former position of the illegally dismissed employee no longer exists;[49] or (b) when the employer's business has closed down;[50] or (c) when the employer-employee relationship has already been strained as to render the reinstatement impossible.[51] The Court likewise considered reinstatement to be non-feasible because a "considerable time" has lapsed between the dismissal and the resolution of the case.[52] In that regard, a lag of eight years or ten years is sufficient to justify an award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. | |||||
|
2011-11-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Under the existing law, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights.[24] Article 279[25] of the Labor Code clearly provides that an employee who is dismissed without just cause and without due process is entitled to backwages and reinstatement or payment of separation pay in lieu thereof.[26] Article 223 of the same Code also provides that an employee entitled to reinstatement shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation, or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. It is established in jurisprudence that reinstatement means restoration to a state or condition from which one had been removed or separated.[27] The person reinstated assumes the position he had occupied prior to his dismissal.[28] Reinstatement presupposes that the previous position from which one had been removed still exists, or that there is an unfilled position which is substantially equivalent or of similar nature as the one previously occupied by the employee.[29] Based on the foregoing principles, it cannot be said that petitioners intended to reinstate private respondent neither to his former position under the same terms and conditions nor to a substantially equivalent position. To begin with, the notice that petitioners sent to private respondent requiring the latter to report back for work is silent with regard to the position or exact nature they wanted the private respondent to assume. Indeed, as it turned out, petitioners had other plans for private respondent. Thus, private respondent's assignment to a different job, as well as transfer of work assignment without any justification therefor, cannot be deemed as faithful compliance with the reinstatement order. | |||||
|
2005-12-16 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In view of Gusi's death, however, separation pay cannot be awarded in lieu of reinstatement. Separation pay is the amount that an employee receives at the time of his severance from the service and is designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he is seeking another employment.[19] To grant the same in this case would result in absurdity. | |||||