This case has been cited 22 times or more.
|
2015-12-02 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Worthy of emphasis is that the award of separation pay is likewise inconsistent with a finding that there was no illegal dismissal. Separation pay becomes due if an employee is dismissed without just cause and without due process and is therefore entitled to backwages and reinstatement. And, in instances where reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employee and the employer, separation pay is granted in lieu thereof. An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable.[15] Notably, under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. However, strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact to be adequately supported by evidence-substantial evidence to show that the relationship between the employer and the employee is indeed strained as a necessary consequence of the judicial controversy.[16] | |||||
|
2014-10-15 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| . . . (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by respondent; and (10) the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[51] [Emphases omitted] | |||||
|
2014-08-13 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| (1) the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[79] | |||||
|
2014-04-02 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The CA's order of reinstatement of Tenazas and Endraca, instead of the payment of separation pay, is also well in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. In Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines,[40] the Court reiterated, thus: [A]n illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement. The two reliefs provided are separate and distinct. In instances where reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employee and the employer, separation pay is granted. In effect, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages. | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Since Johnson was constructively dismissed, he was illegally dismissed. As to the reliefs granted to an employee who is illegally dismissed, Golden Ace Builders v. Talde[37] referring to Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines[38] is instructive: Thus, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement. The two reliefs provided are separate and distinct. In instances where reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employee and the employer, separation pay is granted. In effect, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages. | |||||
|
2013-11-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| For clarity, the bases for computing separation pay and backwages are different. Our ruling in Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines[39] provides us with the manner these awards should be computed: [U]nder Article 279 of the Labor Code and as held in a catena of cases, 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: | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Without substantial evidence to support his claim, Gemina's claim of constructive dismissal must fail. It is an inflexible rule that a party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence, for any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand without offending due process.[37] | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages.[23] In certain cases, however, the Court has ordered the reinstatement of the employee without backwages considering the fact that (1) the dismissal of the employee would be too harsh a penalty; and (2) the employer was in good faith in terminating the employee. For instance, in the case of Cruz v. Minister of Labor and Employment[24] the Court ruled as follows:The Court is convinced that petitioner's guilt was substantially established. Nevertheless, we agree with respondent Minister's order of reinstating petitioner without backwages instead of dismissal which may be too drastic. Denial of backwages would sufficiently penalize her for her infractions. The bank officials acted in good faith. They should be exempt from the burden of paying backwages. The good faith of the employer, when clear under the circumstances, may preclude or diminish recovery of backwages. Only employees discriminately dismissed are entitled to backpay. | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The primordial issue in this Petition is whether petitioner was dismissed from service. At the outset, the Court notes that this is a question of fact which cannot be raised in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.[32] However, when there is no uniformity in the factual findings of the tribunals below, as in this case, this Court is resolved to again examine the records as well as the evidence presented to determine which findings conform with the evidentiary facts.[33] | |||||
|
2013-07-23 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Alcaraz felt that she was unjustly terminated from her employment and thus, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against Abbott and its officers, namely, Misa, Bernardo, Almazar, Walsh, Terrible, and Feist.[24] She claimed that she should have already been considered as a regular and not a probationary employee given Abbott's failure to inform her of the reasonable standards for her regularization upon her engagement as required under Article 295[25] of the Labor Code. In this relation, she contended that while her employment contract stated that she was to be engaged on a probationary status, the same did not indicate the standards on which her regularization would be based.[26] She further averred that the individual petitioners maliciously connived to illegally dismiss her when: (a) they threatened her with termination; (b) she was ordered not to enter company premises even if she was still an employee thereof; and (c) they publicly announced that she already resigned in order to humiliate her.[27] | |||||
|
2013-06-26 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, the CA did not commit any error in dismissing MJCI's petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the NLRC. It is worth repeating that in termination cases, the employer carries the burden of proving that its dismissal of the employee was legal.[45] The employer's failure discharged its burden will readily mean that the dismissal has not been justified, and was, therefore, illegal.[46] Accordingly, the failure of MJCI to establish the just cause for terminating Trajano fully warranted the NLRC's finding that Trajano's termination was illegal. | |||||
|
2013-02-18 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages.[78] In certain cases, however, the Court has ordered the reinstatement of the employee without backwages considering the fact that (1) the dismissal of the employee would be too harsh a penalty; and (2) the employer was in good faith in terminating the employee. For instance, in the case of Cruz v. Minister of Labor and Employment[79] the Court ruled as follows: The Court is convinced that petitioner's guilt was substantially established. Nevertheless, we agree with respondent Minister's order of reinstating petitioner without backwages instead of dismissal which may be too drastic. Denial of backwages would sufficiently penalize her for her infractions. The bank officials acted in good faith. They should be exempt from the burden of paying backwages. The good faith of the employer, when clear under the circumstances, may preclude or diminish recovery of backwages. Only employees discriminately dismissed are entitled to backpay. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2012-09-19 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, the Court ruled in Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,[41] citing Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines:[42] | |||||
|
2012-08-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We disagree. As We noted, the facts show that the illegality of petitioner's dismissal was an issue that was squarely before the NLRC. When the NLRC decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals, from which the issue was elevated to us, we had a situation where "the findings of facts are conflicting." Thus, we find applicable the rule that while generally, only questions of law can be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the rule admits of certain exceptions, namely: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[17] | |||||
|
2011-12-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| While it goes without saying that only questions of law can be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the same admits of exceptions, namely: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[32] | |||||
|
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. | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The rule, however, admits of exceptions, namely: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there isa grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[14] | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| In awarding separation pay to an illegally dismissed employee, in lieu of reinstatement, the amount to be awarded shall be equivalent to one month salary for every year of service[34] reckoned from the first day of employment until the finality of the decision.[35] Payment of separation pay is in addition to payment of backwages.[36] And if separation pay is awarded instead of reinstatement, backwages shall be computed from the time of illegal termination up to the finality of the decision.[37] | |||||
|
2010-05-05 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As to how both awards should be computed, Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines[14] instructs: [T]he award of separation pay is inconsistent with a finding that there was no illegal dismissal, for under Article 279 of the Labor Code and as held in a catena of cases, 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: | |||||
|
2010-04-07 |
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] http://127.0.0.1:7860/source/2009.zip%3E17d,df%7C2009/JAN/178524.htm - ftn16 (emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2010-03-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Casio, et al., having been compelled to litigate in order to seek redress for their illegal dismissal, are entitled to the award of attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.[39] | |||||
|
2009-12-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The respondent having been compelled to litigate in order to seek redress, the CA correctly affirmed the labor arbiter's grant of attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.[19] | |||||