This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-08-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Lim cannot, however, insist that the 10% annual salary increase be applied to his backwages past the year 2000 up to his actual reinstatement. In Equitable Banking Corporation v. Sadac, [41] the Court held that although Article 279 of the Labor Code mandates that an employee's full backwages be inclusive of allowances and other benefits, salary increases cannot be interpreted as either an allowance or a benefit, as allowances and benefits are separate from salary, while a salary increase is added to salary as an increment thereto.[42] It was further held therein that the base figure to be used in the computation of backwages was pegged at the wage rate at the time of the employee's dismissal, inclusive of regular allowances that the employee had been receiving such as the emergency living allowances and the 13th month pay mandated by law. The award of salary differentials was not allowed, the rule being that upon reinstatement, illegally dismissed employees were to be paid their backwages without deduction and qualification as to any wage increases or other benefits that might have been received by their co-workers who were not dismissed.[43] | |||||
|
2014-06-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Backwages are granted on grounds of equity to workers for earnings lost due to their illegal dismissal from work. They represent reparation for the illegal dismissal of an employee based on earnings which the employee would have obtained, either by virtue of a lawful decree or order, as in the case of a wage increase under a wage order, or by rightful expectation, as in the case of one's salary or wage. The outstanding feature of backwages is the degree of assuredness to an employee that he would have had them as earnings had he not been illegally terminated from his employment.[20] | |||||
|
2011-09-21 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to our ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[39] the legal interest of 12% per annum shall be imposed upon the monetary award granted in favor of Uy, from the time this Court's March 31, 2005 Decision became final and executory until full satisfaction thereof, for the delay caused. This natural consequence of a final judgment is not defeated notwithstanding the fact that the parties were at variance in the computation of what is due to Uy under the judgment.[40] | |||||
|
2010-05-05 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| 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.[13] | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The respondent judge ought to have known that the joint decision was already final and executory and could no longer be disturbed when he made his adjustments. This legal reality, known as the rule of immutability of judgment, is an elementary principle of law and procedure. Once a judgment becomes final, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the Highest Court of the land.[51] The only recognized exceptions are the correction of clerical errors, or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc entries, which cause no prejudice to any party, and where the judgment is void.[52] To be sure, the respondent judge's ground for modifying the joint decision is not among these recognized exceptions. | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A final and executory judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land.[11] The only exceptions to this rule are the correction of (1) clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void judgments.[12] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| As has been held, there is no vested right to salary increases. [35] There must be a lawful decree or order supporting an employee's claim. | |||||