This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-04-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As stated, "an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right."[33] But when an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism has already strained the relations between the employer and employee, separation pay is to be awarded as reinstatement can no longer be equitably effected.[34] | |||||
|
2014-04-02 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Clearly, it is only when reinstatement is no longer feasible that the payment of separation pay is ordered in lieu thereof. For instance, 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, it would be more prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement.[42] | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The well-entrenched rule in our jurisdiction that only questions of law may be entertained by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari is not ironclad and admits certain exceptions, such as when (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[19] | |||||