Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEPITO VELASCO v. NLRC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 161596 2013-02-20	ROBERTO BORDOMEO v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
The demand lacked legal basis. Although the decision of the DOLE Secretary dated December 5, 1991 had required IPI to reinstate the affected workers to their former positions with full backwages reckoned from December 8, 1989 until actually reinstated without loss of seniority rights and other benefits, the reinstatement thus decreed was no longer possible. Hence, separation pay was instead paid to them. This alternative was sustained in law and jurisprudence, for "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."[52]
	GR No. 186344 2013-02-20	LEOPARD SECURITY v. TOMAS QUITOY PEREZ, J.
Having correctly ruled out illegal dismissal of respondents, the CA reversibly erred, however, when it sustained the NLRC's award of separation pay on the ground that the parties' relationship had already been strained. For one, liability for the payment of separation pay is a legal consequence of illegal dismissal where reinstatement is no longer viable or feasible. Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to the twin reliefs of full backwages and reinstatement without loss of seniority rights.[30] Aside from the instances provided under Articles 283[31] and 284[32] 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.[33] 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.[34]
	GR No. 178524 2009-01-30	PANFILO MACASERO v. SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL GASES PHILIPPINES CARPIO MORALES, J.
And in Velasco v. National Labor Relations Commission:[15]
	GR No. 158458 2007-12-19	ASIAN TERMINALS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
His dismissal being illegal, respondent is entitled to backwages as a matter of right provided by law.[31] The CA granted him backwages from July 1996, when he reported back for work but was informed of his dismissal, up to the date of finality of its decision. It is noted that the LA and NLRC decisions did not award backwages and respondent did not appeal from said decision. Nonetheless, such award of backwages may still be sustained consistent with our ruling in St. Michael's Institute v. Santos,[32] to wit: On the matter of the award of backwages, petitioners advance the view that by awarding backwages, the appellate court "unwittingly reversed a time-honored doctrine that a party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the appealed decision" We do not agree.
	GR No. 173256 2007-10-09	AFI INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION v. DENNIS G. LORENZO NACHURA, J.
Lack of just cause in terminating the respondents rendered their dismissal illegal. Consequently, they are entitled to reinstatement to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and payment of back wages. However, if such reinstatement proves impracticable and hardly in the best interest of the parties, perhaps due to the lapse of time since their dismissal,[15] or if the employee decides not to be reinstated,[16] respondents should be awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. We, therefore, agree with the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals that separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and back wages is warranted in this case.