So your employee filed an action for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)? In the process of the litigation, exchange of harsh words in the pleadings ensued. In the event that your employee prevails should he/she be reinstated or should he/she be merely paid backwages and separation pay?
The Supreme Court made it clear that 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.
Note that in order for the doctrine of strained relations to apply, it should be proven that the employee concerned occupies a position where he enjoys the trust and confidence of his employer and that it is likely that if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism may be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned.
It bears to stress that reinstatement is the rule and, for the exception of strained relations to apply, it should be proved that it is likely that if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism would be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned.
Moreover, the filing of the complaint by employee cannot be used as a basis for strained relations. As a rule, no strained relations should arise from a valid and legal act asserting one’s right.
The Court stressed that it is human nature that some hostility will inevitably arise between parties as a result of litigation, but the same does not always constitute strained relations in the absence of proof or explanation that such indeed exists.
The doctrine of strained relations has been made applicable to cases where the employee decides not to be reinstated and demands for separation pay. (Cabigting v. San Miguel Foods, Inc., G.R. No. 167706, November 5, 2009)
Note that in order for the doctrine of strained relations to apply, it should be proven that the employee concerned occupies a position where he enjoys the trust and confidence of his employer and that it is likely that if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism may be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned.
It bears to stress that reinstatement is the rule and, for the exception of strained relations to apply, it should be proved that it is likely that if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism would be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned.
Moreover, the filing of the complaint by employee cannot be used as a basis for strained relations. As a rule, no strained relations should arise from a valid and legal act asserting one’s right.
The Court stressed that it is human nature that some hostility will inevitably arise between parties as a result of litigation, but the same does not always constitute strained relations in the absence of proof or explanation that such indeed exists.
The doctrine of strained relations has been made applicable to cases where the employee decides not to be reinstated and demands for separation pay. (Cabigting v. San Miguel Foods, Inc., G.R. No. 167706, November 5, 2009)
0 comments:
Post a Comment