Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. TITO S. INFANTE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 154113 2011-12-07	EDEN GLADYS ABARIA v. NLRC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In G & S Transport Corporation v. Infante, [59] the Court explained the rationale for its recent rulings deleting back wages awarded to the dismissed workers if the strike was found to be illegal. Considering that they did not render work for the employer during the strike, they are entitled only to reinstatement.
	GR No. 159460 2010-11-15	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. ERNESTO U. GAMIER VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The award of backwages is a legal consequence of a finding of illegal dismissal. Assuming that respondent-union members have indeed reported back to work at the end of the concerted mass actions, but were soon terminated by petitioners who found their explanation unsatisfactory, they are not entitled to backwages in view of the illegality of the said strike. Thus, we held in G & S Transport Corporation v. Infante[56]--
	GR No. 160302 2010-09-27	DANILO ESCARIO v. NLRC BERSAMIN, J.
That backwages are not granted to employees participating in an illegal strike simply accords with the reality that they do not render work for the employer during the period of the illegal strike.[23] According to G&S Transport Corporation v. Infante:[24]
	GR No. 163942 2008-11-11	NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL RESTAURANT v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
With respect to backwages, the principle of a "fair day's wage for a fair day's labor" remains as the basic factor in determining the award thereof. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed or otherwise illegally prevented from working. While it was found that respondents expressed their intention to report back to work, the latter exception cannot apply in this case. In Philippine Marine Officer's Guild v. Compañia Maritima, as affirmed in Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union, the Court stressed that for this exception to apply, it is required that the strike be legal, a situation that does not obtain in the case at bar.[28]