This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-02-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Having correctly ruled out illegal dismissal of respondents, the CA reversibly erred, however, when it sustained the NLRC's award of separation pay on the ground that the parties' relationship had already been strained. For one, liability for the payment of separation pay is a legal consequence of illegal dismissal where reinstatement is no longer viable or feasible. Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to the twin reliefs of full backwages and reinstatement without loss of seniority rights.[30] Aside from the instances provided under Articles 283[31] and 284[32] of the Labor Code, separation pay is, however, granted when reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employer and the employee.[33] In cases of illegal dismissal, the accepted doctrine is that separation pay is available in lieu of reinstatement when the latter recourse is no longer practical or in the best interest of the parties.[34] | |||||
|
2012-01-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Under the circumstances, MERALCO's sanction of dismissal will not be commensurate to Beltran's inadvertence not only because there was no clear showing of bad faith and malice but also in consideration of her untainted record of long and dedicated service to MERALCO.[33] In the similar case of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Berbano, Jr.,[34] we held that: The magnitude of the infraction committed by an employee must be weighed and equated with the penalty prescribed and must be commensurate thereto, in view of the gravity of the penalty of dismissal or termination from the service. The employer should bear in mind that in termination cases, what is at stake is not simply the employee's job or position but [her] very livelihood. | |||||