Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VENANCIO S. REYES v. RP GUARDIANS SECURITY AGENCY

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 195654 2015-11-25	REYNALDO INUTAN v. NAPAR CONTRACTING DEL CASTILLO, J.
We, likewise, subscribe to LA Espiritu's ruling that petitioners, as regular employees, are deemed to have been constructively and illegally dismissed by respondents. Being on floating status and off-detailed for more than six months, not having been reinstated and reassigned by respondents, petitioners are considered to have been constructively dismissed.[48] Settled is the rule that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and to his full backwages.[49]
	GR No. 202090 2015-09-09	ICT MAJRKETING SERVICES v. MARIPHIL L. SALES DEL CASTILLO, 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.[51]
	GR No. 198538 2014-09-29	EXOCET SECURITY v. ARMANDO D. SERRANO VELASCO JR., J.
In Reyes v. RP Guardians Security Agency, Inc.,[24] the Court explained the application of DO 14-01 to security agencies and their security guards, and the procedural requirements with which the security agencies must comply: Furthermore, the entitlement of the dismissed employee to separation pay of one month for every year of service should not be confused with Section 6.5 (4) of DOLE D.O. No. 14 which grants a separation pay of one half month for every year service xxx.
	GR No. 206716 2014-06-18	RUBEN C. JORDAN v. GRANDEUR SECURITY BRION, J.
It does not escape this Court's attention that the dispositive part of the May 27, 2008 decision contains two contradictory judgments. The dispositive part states that Jordan's complaint for illegal dismissal is dismissed for lack of merit. In the same breath, the LA ordered Grandeur Security to reinstate Jordan in employment, whether physically or in the payroll. These conflicting judgments are absurd because an employee who has not been dismissed, much less illegally dismissed, cannot be reinstated. In legal parlance, reinstatement without loss of seniority rights is merely a consequence of the employer's illegal dismissal;[33] it merely restores the employee who is unjustly dismissed to his former position.[34]