This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2012-03-14 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The normal consequences of respondent's illegal dismissal, then, are reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and payment of back wages computed from the time compensation was withheld from him up to the date of actual reinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative. The payment of separation pay is in addition to payment of back wages.[29] | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In New Pacific Timber,[14] which petitioner cited, we ruled that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC, using Article 218(c) as part basis, when it entertained the petition for relief filed by a party and treated it as an appeal, even if it was filed beyond the reglementary period for filing an appeal. Before that case, we invoked the same Labor Code provision in City Fair Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission[15] and Judy Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission[16] to justify our ruling that the NLRC did not abuse its discretion when it allowed in both cases the appeal of a party even if it was filed a day, or even a few days, late. Similarly, we held in Industrial Timber Corporation v. Ababon,[17] that substantial justice is best served by permitting the NLRC to allow a petition for relief filed by a party despite the earlier commission of a procedural defect of filing the motion for reconsideration three days late on the strength of Article 218(c) and other pertinent labor law provisions. In Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[18] we held that procedural rules governing service of summons are not strictly construed in NLRC proceedings owing to the relaxation of technical rules of procedure in labor cases as well as to Article 218(c). We likewise held in Aguanza v. Asian Terminal, Inc.,[19] that the insufficiency of a supersedeas bond is a defect in form which the NLRC may waive. Furthermore, in Independent Sagay-Escalante Planters, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[20] we ruled that the NLRC had ample authority, under Article 218(c), to disregard the circumstance that the appeal fee had been tardily paid by one party and to order both parties to present evidence before the Labor Arbiter in support of their claims. Lastly, in Faeldonia v. Tong Yak Groceries[21] and Mt. Carmel College v. Resuena,[22] we used Article 218(c) to justify the NLRC's reversal of the Labor Arbiter's factual conclusions. However, in both cases, there was no objection that the NLRC passed upon issues that were not raised on appeal. | |||||
|
2010-04-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Having firmly established that petitioner dismissed respondent without just cause, and without notice and hearing, then it is only proper to apply Article 279 of the Labor Code which provides that an illegally dismissed employee "shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement." In addition to full backwages, the Court has also repeatedly ruled that in cases where reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relations, then separation pay may be awarded instead of reinstatement.[14] In Mt. Carmel College v. Resuena,[15] the Court reiterated that the separation pay, as an alternative to reinstatement, should be equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service.[16] | |||||
|
2010-02-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an illegally dismissed employee "shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement." In addition to full backwages, the Court has also repeatedly ruled that in cases where reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relations, then separation pay may be awarded instead of reinstatement.[10] In Mt. Carmel College v. Resuena,[11] the Court reiterated that the separation pay, as an alternative to reinstatement, should be equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service.[12] | |||||
|
2010-02-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| By jurisprudence derived from this provision, separation pay may be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee in lieu of reinstatement.[23] Recourse to the payment of separation pay is made when continued employment is no longer possible, in cases where the dismissed employee's position is no longer available, or the continued relationship between the employer and the employee is no longer viable due to the strained relations between them, or when the dismissed employee opted not to be reinstated, or payment of separation benefits will be for the best interest of the parties involved.[24] | |||||
|
2009-09-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner Valdez claims that the decision of the CA was utterly illogical and inconclusive and done in violation of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution;[29] and Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court.[30] He states that respondent Financiera was cleared of all its obligations, except the debts due to his co-plaintiffs on the mere reasoning that the said co-plaintiffs were not impleaded as party-respondents in the petition for certiorari, and that they cannot be deprived of security for the satisfaction of their credits. Petitioner further states that, in so doing, the CA, in effect, actually upheld that respondent had not paid all the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Q-98-35546, in which herein petitioner is one of the plaintiffs. He further argues that the questioned decision becomes more chaotic with the statement that the unpaid obligation due to his co-plaintiffs is P149,126.66, the sum adjudged under the summary judgment. This statement is clearly in conflict with the compromise judgment that they are entitled only to the cash value of P110,000.00 of SPPI Account No. A-04-000-355. Petitioner goes on to add that the decision indeed become topsy-turvy when it declared that the attachment shall be lifted to the extent of the interest of the Spouses Valdez in the amount of P3,920,313.24, the original claim upheld under the summary judgment, again in conflict with the P3,050,000.00 under the Compromise Agreement. The questioned decision became increasingly damaging by declaring in its fallo that petitioner's interest was in the sum of P3,920,313.24. The general rule is that where there is conflict between the dispositive portion or the fallo and the body of the decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order, while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering nothing.[31] | |||||
|
2009-01-30 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The normal consequences of respondents' illegal dismissal, then, are reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and payment of backwages computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the date of actual reinstatement. 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. The payment of separation pay is in addition to payment of backwages.[14] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||