This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-04-01 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Reinstatement, as a labor law concept, means the admission of an employee back to work prevailing prior to his dismissal;[18] restoration to a state or position from which one had been removed or separated, which presupposes that there shall be no demotion in rank and/or diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges; if the position previously occupied no longer exists, the restoration shall be to a substantially equivalent position in terms of salary, benefits and other privileges.[19] Management's prerogative to transfer an employee from one office or station to another within the business establishment, however, generally remains unaffected by a reinstatement order, as long as there is no resulting demotion or diminution of salary and other benefits and/or the action is not motivated by consideration less than fair or effected as a punishment or to get back at the reinstated employee.[20] | |||||
|
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. | |||||