This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-02-23 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, for a different reason, we accord standing to PSCEU and PTMSDWO to file the instant suit. With the transfer of toll operations to SOMCO and the resulting cessation of PSC's business comes the retrenchment and separation of all its employees. The existence of petitioner labor unions would terminate with the dissolution of its employer and the separation of its members. This is why the petition also prays that this Court issue an order "that would smoothly preserve the toll operations services of respondent PNCC and/or respondent PSC under its legislative franchise."[91] We have recognized that the right of self-preservation is inherent in every labor union or any organization for that matter.[92] Thus, PSCEU and PTMSDWO, as real parties in interest, have the personality to question the assumption of the toll operations by SOMCO. | |||||
|
2009-06-04 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The normal consequences of a finding that an employee has been illegally dismissed are, firstly, that the employee becomes entitled to reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights and, secondly, the payment of backwages corresponding to the period from his illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement. The statutory intent on this matter is clearly discernible. Reinstatement restores the employee who was unjustly dismissed to the position from which he was removed, that is, to his status quo ante dismissal, while the grant of backwages allows the same employee to recover from the employer that which he had lost by way of wages as a result of his dismissal. These twin remedies reinstatement and payment of backwages make the dismissed employee whole who can then look forward to continued employment. Thus do these two remedies give meaning and substance to the constitutional right of labor to security of tenure. The two forms of relief are distinct and separate, one from the other. Though the grant of reinstatement commonly carries with it an award of backwages, the inappropriateness or non-availability of one does not carry with it the inappropriateness or non-availability of the other. x x x As the term suggests, separation pay is the amount that an employee receives at the time of his severance from the service and x x x is designed to provide the employee with "the wherewithal during the period that he is looking for another employment." In the instant case, the grant of separation pay was a substitute for immediate and continued re-employment with the private respondent Bank. The grant of separation pay did not redress the injury that is intended to be relieved by the second remedy of backwages, that is, the loss of earnings that would have accrued to the dismissed employee during the period between dismissal and reinstatement. Put a little differently, payment of backwages is a form of relief that restores the income that was lost by reason of unlawful dismissal; separation pay, in contrast, is oriented towards the immediate future, the transitional period the dismissed employee must undergo before locating a replacement job. x x x The grant of separation pay was a proper substitute only for reinstatement; it could not be an adequate substitute both for reinstatement and for backwages.[11] (Emphasis added) WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 21 March 2003 and the Resolution dated 13 February 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67662. | |||||