Lawyerly

GR No. 187691

2016-01-13

REYES, J.

Considering the impossibility of Lapastora's reinstatement, the payment of separation pay, in lieu thereof, is proper. The amount of separation pay to be given to Lapastora must be computed from March 1995, the time he commenced employment with OHI, until the time when the company ceased operations in October 2000.[42] As a twin relief, Lapastora is likewise entitled to the payment of backwages, computed from the time he was unjustly dismissed, or from February 24, 2000 until October 1, 2000 when his reinstatement was rendered impossible without fault on his part.[43]

GR Nos. 178382-83

2015-09-23

CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA v. JOSEPH BASSO

JARDELEZA, J.

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.[91] In the case of Basso, reinstatement is no longer possible since he has already passed away. Thus, Basso's separation pay with full backwages shall be paid to his heirs.

GR No. 197011

2015-01-28

ESSENCIA Q. MANARPIIS v. TEXAN PHILIPPINES

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The normal consequences of petitioner's illegal dismissal are reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and payment of back wages 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 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.[35] Given the strained relations between the parties, the award of separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement, is in order.

GR No. 192998

2014-04-02

BERNARD A. TENAZAS v. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT

REYES, J.

Moreover, the existence of strained relations, it must be emphasized, is a question of fact. In Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,[45] the Court underscored: Strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact, however, 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.[46] (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)

GR No. 191455

2014-03-12

DREAMLAND HOTEL RESORT v. STEPHEN B. JOHNSON

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.

GR No. 193756

2013-04-10

VENANCIO S. REYES v. RP GUARDIANS SECURITY AGENCY

MENDOZA, J.

In the case of Aliling v. Feliciano,[23] citing Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,[24] the Court explained: 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.

GR No. 161596

2013-02-20

ROBERTO BORDOMEO v. CA

BERSAMIN, J.

Under the circumstances, the employment of the 15 employees or the possibility of their reinstatement terminated by March 15, 1995. Thereafter, their claim for separation pay and backwages beyond March 15, 1995 would be unwarranted. The computation of separation pay and backwages due to illegally dismissed employees should not go beyond the date when they were deemed to have been actually separated from their employment, or beyond the date when their reinstatement was rendered impossible. Anent this, the Court has observed in Golden Ace Builders v. Talde:[53]

GR No. 186344

2013-02-20

LEOPARD SECURITY v. TOMAS QUITOY

PEREZ, J.

Our perusal of the position paper they filed a quo shows that, despite erroneously believing themselves to have been illegally dismissed, respondents had alleged no circumstance indicating the strained relations between them and LSIA and had even alternatively prayed for reinstatement alongside the payment of separation pay.[40] Since application of the doctrine of strained relations presupposes a question of fact which must be demonstrated and adequately supported by evidence,[41] the CA clearly erred in ruling that the parties' relations had already soured and that an award of separation pay in favor of respondents is proper. Apprised by Union Bank on 1 April 2005 that it was no longer renewing its security service contract after 30 April 2005, LSIA may have tarried in informing respondents of the fact only on 29 April 2005. As correctly ruled by the NLRC, however, the resultant inconvenience to respondents cannot detract from the fact that the employer-employee relationship between the parties still subsisted and had yet to be severed when respondents filed their complaint on 3 May 2005.

GR No. 198733

2012-10-10

JOHANSEN WORLD GROUP CORPORATION v. RENE MANUEL GONZALES III

CARPIO, J.

The payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is an accepted doctrine particularly if the employee no longer wish to be reinstated.[21] Thus: 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. On one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.[22]

GR No. 186002

2012-09-19

APO CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. RONALDO A. BIDES

MENDOZA, J.

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. On one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.[20] Moreover, the doctrine of strained relations has been made applicable to cases where the employee decides not to be reinstated and demands for separation pay.[21]

GR No. 193789

2012-09-19

ALEX Q. NARANJO v. BIOMEDICA HEALTH CARE

VELASCO JR., J.

Thus, the Court ruled in Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,[41] citing Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines:[42]

GR No. 185335

2012-06-13

PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE v. NLRC

MENDOZA, J.

In view of the strained relations between Vallota and PGAI, however, it is not in the best interest of the parties, nor is it advisable or practical to order 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. It must be stressed, however, that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement, which are separate and distinct. In Golden Ace Builders v. Tagle,[63] it was written: 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.

GR No. 185829

2012-04-25

ARMANDO ALILING v. JOSE B. FELICIANO

VELASCO JR., J.

In Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,[41] the Court ruled: The basis for the payment of backwages is different from that for the award of separation pay. Separation pay is granted where reinstatement is no longer advisable because of strained relations between the employee and the employer. Backwages represent compensation that should have been earned but were not collected because of the unjust dismissal. The basis for computing backwages is usually the length of the employee's service while that for separation pay is the actual period when the employee was unlawfully prevented from working.

GR No. 188722

2012-02-01

BANK OF LUBAO v. ROMMEL J. MANABAT

REYES, J.

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.On one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment.On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.[18]

GR No. 177467

2011-03-09

PFIZER v. GERALDINE VELASCO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Similarly, we have previously held that an employee's demand for separation pay may be indicative of strained relations that may justify payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.[31] This is not to say, however, that respondent is entitled to separation pay in addition to backwages. We stress here that a finding of strained relations must nonetheless still be supported by substantial evidence.[32]

GR No. 185814

2010-10-13

SHS PERFORATED MATERIALS v. MANUEL F. DIAZ

MENDOZA, J.

Respondent's reinstatement, however, is no longer feasible as antagonism has caused a severe strain in their working relationship. 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. Payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment, and at the same time releases the employer from the obligation of keeping in its employ a worker it no longer trusts. Therefore, a more equitable disposition would be an award of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay, in addition to his full backwages, allowances and other benefits.[31]

GR No. 185122

2010-08-16

WENSHA SPA CENTER v. LORETA T. YUNG

MENDOZA, J.

We are in accord with the pronouncement of the CA that the reinstatement of Loreta to her former position is no longer feasible in the light of the strained relations between the parties. Reinstatement, under the circumstances, would no longer be practical as it would not be in the interest of both parties. Under the law and jurisprudence, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs - backwages and reinstatement, which are separate and distinct. If reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and further ruin the relations of the employer and the employee, or if their relationship has been unduly strained due to irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement.[31] In the case of Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,[32] We wrote: Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay has been considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. On the one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other, the payment releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.

GR No. 185269

2010-06-29

ELSA S. MALIG-ON v. EQUITABLE GENERAL SERVICES

ABAD, J.

Backwages represent compensation that should have been earned but were not collected because of the unjust dismissal.[9] Malig-on can be said to be entitled to reinstatement from the time she was constructively dismissed in August 2002 until the NLRC ordered her immediate reinstatement in February 2005, a period of two years and six months. For this she is entitled to backwages. But since, as already stated, the circumstances already rule out actual reinstatement, she is entitled to separation pay at the rate of one month for every year of service from 1996, when she began her employment to 2005, when she is deemed to have been actually separated from work, a period of nine years, both amounts--the backwages and the separation pay--to bear interest of 6 percent per annum until fully paid.[10]

	GR No. 187691 2016-01-13	OLYMPIA HOUSING v. ALLAN LAPASTORA REYES, J.
Considering the impossibility of Lapastora's reinstatement, the payment of separation pay, in lieu thereof, is proper. The amount of separation pay to be given to Lapastora must be computed from March 1995, the time he commenced employment with OHI, until the time when the company ceased operations in October 2000.[42] As a twin relief, Lapastora is likewise entitled to the payment of backwages, computed from the time he was unjustly dismissed, or from February 24, 2000 until October 1, 2000 when his reinstatement was rendered impossible without fault on his part.[43]
	GR Nos. 178382-83 2015-09-23	CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA v. JOSEPH BASSO JARDELEZA, J.
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.[91] In the case of Basso, reinstatement is no longer possible since he has already passed away. Thus, Basso's separation pay with full backwages shall be paid to his heirs.
	GR No. 197011 2015-01-28	ESSENCIA Q. MANARPIIS v. TEXAN PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The normal consequences of petitioner's illegal dismissal are reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and payment of back wages 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 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.[35] Given the strained relations between the parties, the award of separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement, is in order.
	GR No. 192998 2014-04-02	BERNARD A. TENAZAS v. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT REYES, J.
Moreover, the existence of strained relations, it must be emphasized, is a question of fact. In Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,[45] the Court underscored: Strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact, however, 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.[46] (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)
	GR No. 191455 2014-03-12	DREAMLAND HOTEL RESORT v. STEPHEN B. JOHNSON 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.
	GR No. 193756 2013-04-10	VENANCIO S. REYES v. RP GUARDIANS SECURITY AGENCY MENDOZA, J.
In the case of Aliling v. Feliciano,[23] citing Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,[24] the Court explained: 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.
	GR No. 161596 2013-02-20	ROBERTO BORDOMEO v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
Under the circumstances, the employment of the 15 employees or the possibility of their reinstatement terminated by March 15, 1995. Thereafter, their claim for separation pay and backwages beyond March 15, 1995 would be unwarranted. The computation of separation pay and backwages due to illegally dismissed employees should not go beyond the date when they were deemed to have been actually separated from their employment, or beyond the date when their reinstatement was rendered impossible. Anent this, the Court has observed in Golden Ace Builders v. Talde:[53]
	GR No. 186344 2013-02-20	LEOPARD SECURITY v. TOMAS QUITOY PEREZ, J.
Our perusal of the position paper they filed a quo shows that, despite erroneously believing themselves to have been illegally dismissed, respondents had alleged no circumstance indicating the strained relations between them and LSIA and had even alternatively prayed for reinstatement alongside the payment of separation pay.[40] Since application of the doctrine of strained relations presupposes a question of fact which must be demonstrated and adequately supported by evidence,[41] the CA clearly erred in ruling that the parties' relations had already soured and that an award of separation pay in favor of respondents is proper. Apprised by Union Bank on 1 April 2005 that it was no longer renewing its security service contract after 30 April 2005, LSIA may have tarried in informing respondents of the fact only on 29 April 2005. As correctly ruled by the NLRC, however, the resultant inconvenience to respondents cannot detract from the fact that the employer-employee relationship between the parties still subsisted and had yet to be severed when respondents filed their complaint on 3 May 2005.
	GR No. 198733 2012-10-10	JOHANSEN WORLD GROUP CORPORATION v. RENE MANUEL GONZALES III CARPIO, J.
The payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is an accepted doctrine particularly if the employee no longer wish to be reinstated.[21] Thus: 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. On one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.[22]
	GR No. 186002 2012-09-19	APO CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. RONALDO A. BIDES MENDOZA, J.
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. On one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.[20] Moreover, the doctrine of strained relations has been made applicable to cases where the employee decides not to be reinstated and demands for separation pay.[21]
	GR No. 193789 2012-09-19	ALEX Q. NARANJO v. BIOMEDICA HEALTH CARE VELASCO JR., J.
Thus, the Court ruled in Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,[41] citing Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines:[42]
	GR No. 185335 2012-06-13	PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE v. NLRC MENDOZA, J.
In view of the strained relations between Vallota and PGAI, however, it is not in the best interest of the parties, nor is it advisable or practical to order 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. It must be stressed, however, that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement, which are separate and distinct. In Golden Ace Builders v. Tagle,[63] it was written: 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.
	GR No. 185829 2012-04-25	ARMANDO ALILING v. JOSE B. FELICIANO VELASCO JR., J.
In Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,[41] the Court ruled: The basis for the payment of backwages is different from that for the award of separation pay. Separation pay is granted where reinstatement is no longer advisable because of strained relations between the employee and the employer. Backwages represent compensation that should have been earned but were not collected because of the unjust dismissal. The basis for computing backwages is usually the length of the employee's service while that for separation pay is the actual period when the employee was unlawfully prevented from working.
	GR No. 188722 2012-02-01	BANK OF LUBAO v. ROMMEL J. MANABAT REYES, J.
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.On one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment.On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.[18]
	GR No. 177467 2011-03-09	PFIZER v. GERALDINE VELASCO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Similarly, we have previously held that an employee's demand for separation pay may be indicative of strained relations that may justify payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.[31] This is not to say, however, that respondent is entitled to separation pay in addition to backwages. We stress here that a finding of strained relations must nonetheless still be supported by substantial evidence.[32]
	GR No. 185814 2010-10-13	SHS PERFORATED MATERIALS v. MANUEL F. DIAZ MENDOZA, J.
Respondent's reinstatement, however, is no longer feasible as antagonism has caused a severe strain in their working relationship. 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. Payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment, and at the same time releases the employer from the obligation of keeping in its employ a worker it no longer trusts. Therefore, a more equitable disposition would be an award of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay, in addition to his full backwages, allowances and other benefits.[31]
	GR No. 185122 2010-08-16	WENSHA SPA CENTER v. LORETA T. YUNG MENDOZA, J.
We are in accord with the pronouncement of the CA that the reinstatement of Loreta to her former position is no longer feasible in the light of the strained relations between the parties. Reinstatement, under the circumstances, would no longer be practical as it would not be in the interest of both parties. Under the law and jurisprudence, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs - backwages and reinstatement, which are separate and distinct. If reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and further ruin the relations of the employer and the employee, or if their relationship has been unduly strained due to irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement.[31] In the case of Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,[32] We wrote: Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay has been considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. On the one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other, the payment releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.
	GR No. 185269 2010-06-29	ELSA S. MALIG-ON v. EQUITABLE GENERAL SERVICES ABAD, J.
Backwages represent compensation that should have been earned but were not collected because of the unjust dismissal.[9] Malig-on can be said to be entitled to reinstatement from the time she was constructively dismissed in August 2002 until the NLRC ordered her immediate reinstatement in February 2005, a period of two years and six months. For this she is entitled to backwages. But since, as already stated, the circumstances already rule out actual reinstatement, she is entitled to separation pay at the rate of one month for every year of service from 1996, when she began her employment to 2005, when she is deemed to have been actually separated from work, a period of nine years, both amounts--the backwages and the separation pay--to bear interest of 6 percent per annum until fully paid.[10]

GOLDEN ACE BUILDERS v. JOSE A. TALDE