This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-02-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In view of the illegal dismissal of petitioner, he is entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement for the reason above stated, computed from the date of petitioner's employment until finality of our decision;[3] and backwages to be computed from the date he was constructively dismissed, i.e., July 17, 2002, up to the finality of this decision, less the amounts paid in accordance with his payroll reinstatement. While the discretion to choose the mode of reinstatement lies with the employer, the exercise thereof by respondents in the instant case was, as correctly held by the Labor Arbiter,[4] a mockery of the true import of actual reinstatement,[5] considering that petitioner was reinstated as a Reserved Franchise Manager[6] and was made to perform demeaning jobs.[7] This finding of fact by the Labor Arbiter as affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission is entitled to great weight and respect and is therefore adopted by this Court. Moreover, payroll reinstatement is proper in this case because the physical presence of petitioner in the office might have worsened the already strained relations between him and respondents, particularly, his immediate superior respondent De Jesus, to whom he will directly report every day, as a Manager Reserve. | |||||
|
2006-06-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The labor arbiter and the Court of Appeals did not err in awarding attorney's fees to respondent. It is settled that in actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interests, he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees.[15] However, with regard to Unauthorized Deductions amounting to P171,780.00;[16] we note that the appellate court did not state any basis for its award, thus, the same is deleted for lack of factual and legal basis. | |||||