Lawyerly

GR No. 187226

2015-01-28

CHERYLL SANTOS LEUS v. ST. SCHOLASTICA’S COLLEGE WESTGROVE

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]

GR No. 185122

2010-08-16

WENSHA SPA CENTER v. LORETA T. YUNG

MENDOZA, J.

We are in accord with the pronouncement of the CA that the reinstatement of Loreta to her former position is no longer feasible in the light of the strained relations between the parties. Reinstatement, under the circumstances, would no longer be practical as it would not be in the interest of both parties. Under the law and jurisprudence, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs - backwages and reinstatement, which are separate and distinct. If reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and further ruin the relations of the employer and the employee, or if their relationship has been unduly strained due to irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement.[31] In the case of Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,[32] We wrote: Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay has been considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. On the one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other, the payment releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.

GR No. 170464

2010-07-12

LAMBERT PAWNBROKERS v. HELEN BINAMIRA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

However, the award of attorney's fee is warranted pursuant to Article 111 of the Labor Code. Ten (10%) percent of the total award is usually the reasonable amount of attorney's fees awarded. It is settled that where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interest, the award of attorney's fees is legally and morally justifiable.[32]

GR No. 167706

2009-11-05

REYNALDO G. CABIGTING v. SAN MIGUEL FOODS

PERALTA, J.

Under the law and prevailing jurisprudence, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. However, if reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and strained relations between the parties, or where the relationship between the employer and the employee has been unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be more prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement.[30]

GR No. 174141

2009-06-26

PENTAGON STEEL CORPORATION v. CA

BRION, J.

First. The existence of strained relations between the parties was not clearly established. We have consistently ruled that the doctrine of strained relations cannot be used recklessly or applied loosely to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his means of livelihood and deny him reinstatement. Since the application of this doctrine will result in the deprivation of employment despite the absence of just cause, the implementation of the doctrine of strained relationship must be supplemented by the rule that the existence of a strained relationship is for the employer to clearly establish and prove in the manner it is called upon to prove the existence of a just cause; the degree of hostility attendant to a litigation is not, by itself, sufficient proof of the existence of strained relations that would rule out the possibility of reinstatement.[30] Indeed, labor disputes almost always result in "strained relations," and the phrase cannot be given an overarching interpretation; otherwise, an unjustly dismissed employee can never be reinstated.[31]

GR No. 180551

2009-02-10

ERWIN H. REYES v. VS.NLRC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

To protect the employee's security of tenure, the Court has emphasized that the doctrine of "strained relations" should be strictly applied so as not to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his right to reinstatement. Every labor dispute almost always results in "strained relations," and the phrase cannot be given an overarching interpretation; otherwise, an unjustly dismissed employee can never be reinstated.[24] The assumption of strained relations was already debunked by the fact that as early as March 2006 petitioner returned to work for respondent CCBP, without any antagonism having been reported thus far by any of the parties. Neither can we sustain the NLRC's conclusion that petitioner's position is confidential in nature. Receipt of proceeds from sales of respondent CCBP's products does not make petitioner a confidential employee. A confidential employee is one who (1) assists or acts in a confidential capacity, in regard to (2) persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies specifically in the field of labor relations.[25] Verily, petitioner's job as a salesman does not fall under this qualification.

GR Nos. 146121-22

2008-04-16

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION and GERIBERN ABELLA v. NLRC

TINGA, J,

The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed with the NLRC's application of the doctrine of "strained relations," citing jurisprudence[19] that the same should be strictly applied so as not to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his right to reinstatement, and that since every labor dispute almost always results in "strained relations," the phrase cannot be given an over-arching interpretation.[20] Thus, it ordered that respondent's backwages be computed from the date of his dismissal up to the time when he was actually reinstated. Since respondent was placed on payroll reinstatement on 15 October 1998, he should be awarded backwages from 2 July 1997 up to 14 October 1998.

GR NO. 172799

2007-07-06

JOHNSON v. JOHNSON OFFICE

TINGA, J.

Well-entrenched is the rule that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. Over the years, however, case law developed that where reinstatement is not feasible, expedient or practical, as where reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and strained relations between the parties, or where the relationship between the employer and employee has been unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be more prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement.[14] In other words, the payment of separation compensation in lieu of the reinstatement of an employee who was illegally dismissed from work shall be allowed if and only if the employer can prove the existence of circumstances showing that reinstatement will no longer be for the mutual benefit of the employer and employee.

GR NO. 158759

2005-05-26

MARILYN T. SAGUM v. CA

PUNO, J.

[T]he alleged antagonism between the petitioner and the private respondent is a mere conclusion bereft of evidentiary support. To be sure, the private respondent did not raise the defense of strained relationship with the petitioner before the labor arbiter. Consequently, this issue which is factual in nature, was not the subject of evidence on the part of both the petitioner and the respondent. There is thus no competent evidence upon which to base the conclusion that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent has reached the point where it is now best to sever their employment relationship. We therefore hold that the NLRC's ruling on the alleged brewing antagonism between the petitioner and the respondent is a mere guesswork and cannot justify the non-reinstatement of petitioner x x x.[36] (footnotes and emphases omitted)

GR NO. 137863

2005-03-31

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We have oft said that mere allegation of strained relations to bar reinstatement is frowned upon. In the case of PLDT, et al. v. Tolentino,[23] we reiterated our ruling in Quijano v. Mercury Drug Corp.[24] wherein we propitiously said that the strained relations doctrine should be strictly applied so as not to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his right to reinstatement. We further stated that:Well-entrenched is the rule that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. Over the years, however, the case law developed that where reinstatement is not feasible, expedient or practical, as where reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and strained relations between the parties, or where the relationship between the employer and employee has been unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be more prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement. Some unscrupulous employers, however, have taken advantage of the overgrowth of this doctrine of "strained relations" by using it as a cover to get rid of its employees and thus defeat their right to job security.

	GR No. 187226 2015-01-28	CHERYLL SANTOS LEUS v. ST. SCHOLASTICA’S COLLEGE WESTGROVE 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]
	GR No. 185122 2010-08-16	WENSHA SPA CENTER v. LORETA T. YUNG MENDOZA, J.
We are in accord with the pronouncement of the CA that the reinstatement of Loreta to her former position is no longer feasible in the light of the strained relations between the parties. Reinstatement, under the circumstances, would no longer be practical as it would not be in the interest of both parties. Under the law and jurisprudence, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs - backwages and reinstatement, which are separate and distinct. If reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and further ruin the relations of the employer and the employee, or if their relationship has been unduly strained due to irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement.[31] In the case of Golden Ace Builders v. Talde,[32] We wrote: Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay has been considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. On the one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other, the payment releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.
	GR No. 170464 2010-07-12	LAMBERT PAWNBROKERS v. HELEN BINAMIRA DEL CASTILLO, J.
However, the award of attorney's fee is warranted pursuant to Article 111 of the Labor Code. Ten (10%) percent of the total award is usually the reasonable amount of attorney's fees awarded. It is settled that where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interest, the award of attorney's fees is legally and morally justifiable.[32]
	GR No. 167706 2009-11-05	REYNALDO G. CABIGTING v. SAN MIGUEL FOODS PERALTA, J.
Under the law and prevailing jurisprudence, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. However, if reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and strained relations between the parties, or where the relationship between the employer and the employee has been unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be more prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement.[30]
	GR No. 174141 2009-06-26	PENTAGON STEEL CORPORATION v. CA BRION, J.
First. The existence of strained relations between the parties was not clearly established. We have consistently ruled that the doctrine of strained relations cannot be used recklessly or applied loosely to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his means of livelihood and deny him reinstatement. Since the application of this doctrine will result in the deprivation of employment despite the absence of just cause, the implementation of the doctrine of strained relationship must be supplemented by the rule that the existence of a strained relationship is for the employer to clearly establish and prove in the manner it is called upon to prove the existence of a just cause; the degree of hostility attendant to a litigation is not, by itself, sufficient proof of the existence of strained relations that would rule out the possibility of reinstatement.[30] Indeed, labor disputes almost always result in "strained relations," and the phrase cannot be given an overarching interpretation; otherwise, an unjustly dismissed employee can never be reinstated.[31]
	GR No. 180551 2009-02-10	ERWIN H. REYES v. VS.NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To protect the employee's security of tenure, the Court has emphasized that the doctrine of "strained relations" should be strictly applied so as not to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his right to reinstatement. Every labor dispute almost always results in "strained relations," and the phrase cannot be given an overarching interpretation; otherwise, an unjustly dismissed employee can never be reinstated.[24] The assumption of strained relations was already debunked by the fact that as early as March 2006 petitioner returned to work for respondent CCBP, without any antagonism having been reported thus far by any of the parties. Neither can we sustain the NLRC's conclusion that petitioner's position is confidential in nature. Receipt of proceeds from sales of respondent CCBP's products does not make petitioner a confidential employee. A confidential employee is one who (1) assists or acts in a confidential capacity, in regard to (2) persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies specifically in the field of labor relations.[25] Verily, petitioner's job as a salesman does not fall under this qualification.
	GR Nos. 146121-22 2008-04-16	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION and GERIBERN ABELLA v. NLRC TINGA, J,
The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed with the NLRC's application of the doctrine of "strained relations," citing jurisprudence[19] that the same should be strictly applied so as not to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his right to reinstatement, and that since every labor dispute almost always results in "strained relations," the phrase cannot be given an over-arching interpretation.[20] Thus, it ordered that respondent's backwages be computed from the date of his dismissal up to the time when he was actually reinstated. Since respondent was placed on payroll reinstatement on 15 October 1998, he should be awarded backwages from 2 July 1997 up to 14 October 1998.
	GR NO. 172799 2007-07-06	JOHNSON v. JOHNSON OFFICE TINGA, J.
Well-entrenched is the rule that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. Over the years, however, case law developed that where reinstatement is not feasible, expedient or practical, as where reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and strained relations between the parties, or where the relationship between the employer and employee has been unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be more prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement.[14] In other words, the payment of separation compensation in lieu of the reinstatement of an employee who was illegally dismissed from work shall be allowed if and only if the employer can prove the existence of circumstances showing that reinstatement will no longer be for the mutual benefit of the employer and employee.
	GR NO. 158759 2005-05-26	MARILYN T. SAGUM v. CA PUNO, J.
[T]he alleged antagonism between the petitioner and the private respondent is a mere conclusion bereft of evidentiary support. To be sure, the private respondent did not raise the defense of strained relationship with the petitioner before the labor arbiter. Consequently, this issue which is factual in nature, was not the subject of evidence on the part of both the petitioner and the respondent. There is thus no competent evidence upon which to base the conclusion that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent has reached the point where it is now best to sever their employment relationship. We therefore hold that the NLRC's ruling on the alleged brewing antagonism between the petitioner and the respondent is a mere guesswork and cannot justify the non-reinstatement of petitioner x x x.[36] (footnotes and emphases omitted)
	GR NO. 137863 2005-03-31	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have oft said that mere allegation of strained relations to bar reinstatement is frowned upon. In the case of PLDT, et al. v. Tolentino,[23] we reiterated our ruling in Quijano v. Mercury Drug Corp.[24] wherein we propitiously said that the strained relations doctrine should be strictly applied so as not to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his right to reinstatement. We further stated that:Well-entrenched is the rule that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. Over the years, however, the case law developed that where reinstatement is not feasible, expedient or practical, as where reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and strained relations between the parties, or where the relationship between the employer and employee has been unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be more prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement. Some unscrupulous employers, however, have taken advantage of the overgrowth of this doctrine of "strained relations" by using it as a cover to get rid of its employees and thus defeat their right to job security.

DANDY V. QUIJANO v. MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION