Aliling is entitled to backwages
and separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement
As may be noted, the CA found Aliling’s
dismissal as having been illegally effected, but nonetheless concluded that his
employment ceased at the end of the probationary period. Thus, the appellate
court merely affirmed the monetary award made by the NLRC, which consisted of
the payment of that amount corresponding to the unserved portion of the
contract of employment.
The case disposition on the award is erroneous.
As earlier explained, Aliling cannot
be rightfully considered as a mere probationary employee. Accordingly, the
probationary period set in the contract of employment dated June 11, 2004 was
of no moment. In net effect, as of that
date June 11, 2004, Aliling became part of the WWWEC organization as a regular
employee of the company without a fixed term of employment. Thus, he is
entitled to backwages reckoned from the time he was illegally dismissed on
October 6, 2004, with a PhP 17,300.00 monthly salary, until the finality of
this Decision. This disposition hews with the Court’s ensuing holding in Javellana v. Belen:[40]
Article
279 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 34 of Republic Act 6715 instructs:
Art.
279. Security of Tenure. - In cases of regular employment, the employer shall
not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from
work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and
other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their
monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from
him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. (Emphasis supplied)
Clearly,
the law intends the award of backwages and similar benefits to accumulate past
the date of the Labor Arbiter’s decision until the dismissed employee is
actually reinstated. But if, as in this case, reinstatement is no longer
possible, this Court has consistently
ruled that backwages shall be computed from the time of illegal dismissal until
the date the decision becomes final. (Emphasis supplied.)
Additionally, Aliling is entitled to separation
pay in lieu of reinstatement on the ground of strained relationship.
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.
As to how both awards should be computed, Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases
Philippines instructs:
[T]he award of separation pay is inconsistent
with a finding that there was no illegal dismissal, for under Article 279 of
the Labor Code and as held in a catena of cases, 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:
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.
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. x x x
Velasco
v. National Labor Relations Commission emphasizes:
The accepted doctrine is that separation pay
may avail in lieu of reinstatement if reinstatement is no longer practical or
in the best interest of the parties. Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement
may likewise be awarded if the employee decides not to be reinstated. (emphasis
in the original; italics supplied)
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.
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.
In
the present case, the Labor Arbiter found that actual animosity existed between
petitioner Azul and respondent as a result of the filing of the illegal
dismissal case. Such finding, especially when affirmed by the appellate court
as in the case at bar, is binding upon the Court, consistent with the
prevailing rules that this Court will not try facts anew and that findings of
facts of quasi-judicial bodies are accorded great respect, even finality. (Emphasis supplied.)
As the CA correctly observed, “To
reinstate petitioner [Aliling] would only create an atmosphere of antagonism
and distrust, more so that he had only a short stint with respondent company.”[42] The
Court need not belabor the fact that the patent animosity that had developed
between employer and employee generated what may be considered as the arbitrary
dismissal of the petitioner.
Following the pronouncements of this
Court Sagales v. Rustan’s Commercial
Corporation,[43] the
computation of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement includes the period for
which backwages were awarded:
Thus, in lieu of reinstatement, it is but
proper to award petitioner separation
pay computed at one-month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months
considered as one whole year. In the computation of separation pay, the period
where backwages are awarded must be included. (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, Aliling is entitled to both
backwages and separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement) in the amount of one
(1) month’s salary for every year of service, that is, from June 11, 2004 (date
of employment contract) until the finality of this decision with a fraction of
a year of at least six (6) months to be considered as one (1) whole year. As
determined by the labor arbiter, the basis for the computation of backwages and
separation pay will be Aliling’s monthly salary at PhP 17,300.
x x x."
See -
THIRD DIVISION
|
ARMANDO ALILING,
Petitioner,
-
versus -
JOSE B. FELICIANO, MANUEL BERSAMIN,
JJ.
F. SAN MATEO III, JOSEPH R.
LARIOSA, and WIDE WIDE Promulgated:
WORLD EXPRESS CORPORATION,
Respondents.
|
|
G.R. No. 185829
Present:
VELASCO,
JR., J., Chairperson
PERALTA,
ABAD,
MENDOZA, and
PERLAS-BERNABE,
JJ.
Promulgated:
April
25, 2012
|
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
