This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Here, we find that petitioner anchored his claims on unfounded and unproven allegations. No positive or direct evidence was adduced to show that he was indeed illegally dismissed from employment, either factually or constructively. If anything, the evidence on record showed that petitioner was relieved from his last assignment because of the implementation of a rotation policy by respondent agency which was requested by its clients; and that as correctly found by the CA, petitioner, from that point on, was considered on floating status or on temporary off-detail which is not an unusual occurrence for security guards given that their assignments primarily depend on the contracts entered into by the agency with third parties.[26] Placing petitioner on floating or off-detail status for not more than six months is not prohibited by law and did not amount to dismissal.[27] | |||||
|
2015-01-28 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Having established that the petitioner was illegally dismissed, the Court now determines the reliefs that she is entitled to and their extent. Under the law and prevailing jurisprudence, "an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right."[54] Aside from the instances provided under Articles 283[55] and 284[56] 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. 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.[57] | |||||
|
2014-04-02 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The petitioners themselves likewise overlooked to allege circumstances which may have rendered their reinstatement unlikely or unwise and even prayed for reinstatement alongside the payment of separation pay in their position paper.[47] A bare claim of strained relations by reason of termination is insufficient to warrant the granting of separation pay. Likewise, the filing of the complaint by the petitioners does not necessarily translate to strained relations between the parties. As a rule, no strained relations should arise from a valid and legal act asserting one's right.[48] Although litigation may also engender a certain degree of hostility, the understandable strain in the parties' relation would not necessarily rule out reinstatement which would, otherwise, become the rule rather the exception in illegal dismissal cases.[49] Thus, it was a prudent call for the CA to delete the award of separation pay and order for reinstatement instead, in accordance with the general rule stated in Article 279[50] of the Labor Code. | |||||