GOLDEN AGE BUILDERS and ARNOLD AZUL v. JOSE TALDE 5 May 2010 | Carpio-Morales, J. | Termination Termination of employment > General concepts > Normal consequences of illegality of dismissal Talde, SUMMARY: Talde,
carpenter of Golden Age, filed an illegal dismissal case and was reinstated by the LA. He then manifested to the LA that animosity existed between him and owner-manager Azul, leading the NLRC to compute his separation pay. Such pay was vacated by the NLRC on petitioners’ MR that Talde never challenged the LA decision of reinstatement. CA allowed separation pay because of strained relations, as affirmed by the SC in this case with modification that separation pay and backwages be computed computed from June 30, 2005, the date of his actual separation separation when reinstatement reinstatement was rendered rendered impossible. impossible. An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two separate, distinct reliefs: (1) reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and (2) payment of backwages computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the date of actual reinstatement. Where reinstatement is not viable because of strained employee-employer relations, separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative. Strained employer-employee relations must be demonstrated as fact as a necessary consequence of the judicial controversy, controversy, and adequately supported by substantial evidence.
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
RULES:
1.
Talde alde was was hired hired in in 1990 1990 as carp carpent enter er by by Golde Golden n Ace Ace Builders of which co-petitioner Azul is owner-manager. owner-manager.
2.
In Febru February ary 1999 1999,, when when Azul Azul alle alleged ged unav unavail ailabi abilit lity y of construction projects and stopped giving work assignments, Talde Talde filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
3.
LA on 10 10 Janua January ry 2001 2001 ruled ruled for for Tald Talde, e, orde orderin ring g reinstatement, backwages (P144,382.23), premium pay for rest days, SIL pay and 13th month pay (P3,236.37).
4.
Pendin Pending g their their appeal appeal to NLRC NLRC,, petiti petitione oners rs advis advised ed Tald Taldee to report for work within 10 days from receipt.
5.
Talde alde submit submitted ted a manif manifest estati ation on on 16 May May 2001 2001 to LA LA that animosities existed between him and petitioners and there had been threats to him and his family’s safety, so he opted for separation pay. Petitioners denied animosity.
6.
NLRC NLRC on on 22 April April 2002 2002 dismis dismissed sed appeal appeal and denied denied MR holding that Talde was an illegally dismissed regular employee and not a project employee. Petitioners’ CA appeal was dismissed August 12, 2004.
7.
The NLR NLRC C Fisca Fiscall Exami Examiner ner reco recompu mputed ted at at P562, P562,804 804.69 .69 the amount due Talde, approved by the LA on 5 July 2005. A writ of execution was issued 8 July.
8.
On Marc March h 9, 2006 2006,, the the NLRC NLRC gran granted ted peti petitio tioner ners’ s’ MR and vacated the computation on the arguments that:
(A) The basis for backwages is different different from separation pay: Separation pay is granted where reinstatement is no longer advisable because of strained relations between employee and employer, computed by the actual period where the employee was unlawfully prevented from working. Backwages represent compensation that should have been earned but were not collected because of unjust dismissal, computed on the length of the employee’s employee’s service. (B) An illegally dismissed dismissed employee is entitled to two two separate and distinct reliefs under Article 279 LC: reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and payment of backwages computed from the withholding of compensation up to the date of actual reinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer viable because of strained employee-employer relations, separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service should be alternatively awarded, in addition to payment of backwages. ( Macasero Macasero v. Southern Industrial Industrial Gases PH ) (C) The doctrine of strained relations: relations: separation pay may may be availed of in lieu of reinstatement if reinstatement is no longer practical, in the best interest of the parties, or if the employee decides not to be reinstated ( Velasco v. NLRC ) Benefits: Payment of separation pay frees employer from what could be a highly oppressive work environment and releases employer from unpalatable obligation of employing a worker it cannot trust. Standard of proof: Strained employer-employee relations must be demonstrated as fact as a necessary consequence of the judicial controversy, to be adequately supported by substantial evidence.
Talde did not appeal LA decision of reinstatement; cannot be given affirmative affirmative relief like separation pay Talde may recover backwages up to 20 May 2001, the day he was supposed to return to his job (and not 15 May 2001 when Talde refused to be reinstated as argued by petitioners) 9.
Talde’ alde’ss MR was was denie denied d by the the NLRC NLRC on June June 30, 30, 2006, 2006, hence he appealed to the CA
10. CA on Septembe Septemberr 10, 2008 2008 set aside aside NLRC NLRC Resol Resolution utions, s, ruling Talde entitled to backwages (P562,804.69) and separation pay (P220.00 x 26 days = P5,720,00 x 8 years = P45,760), even if LA did not grant separation pay given strained relations. CA also denied MR. MAIN ISSUE:
Whether Talde is entitled to separation pay — DISPOSITIVE:
YES
Petition dismissed. CA affirmed with modification that separation pay is computed at P85,800.
RATIO:
(1) LA found that actual actual animosity existed existed between Azul and Talde as a result of the filing of the illegal dismissal case, entitling the latter to backwages and separation pay. (2) Backwages must be computed from from the time he was unjustly dismissed until his actual reinstatement, or from February 1999 until June 30, 2005 when his reinstatement was rendered impossible without fault on his part. (3) Separation pay must be computed on the the 15 years from Talde’s hiring in 1990 until June 30, 2005 or actual separation. Appellate court considered only his 8 years of service until 1999, when Talde was unjustly dismissed.
