497 Phil. 647
In this petition for review on
certiorari,
petitioner seeks to set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court
of Appeals, dated March 21, 2003 and December 12, 2003, respectively,
in CA-G.R. SP No. 61564, which affirmed the ruling of the labor arbiter
and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ordering the
reinstatement of respondent who was illegally dismissed from service.
The
facts show that on June 13, 1983, petitioner PHESCHEM INDUSTRIAL
CORPORATION employed respondent PABLITO V. MOLDEZ as operator of its
payloader and bulldozer at its quarrying site in Palompon, Leyte.
Respondent
alleged that on November 13, 1997, he was notified by Engr. Isidro
Viacrusis, petitioner's personnel officer, that he was suspended from
work without pay for a period of seven (7) days, without being informed
of its reason. After seven (7) days or on November 19, 1997, he
reported back to work only to be told that the President of the
corporation, Tomas Y. Tan, was ill and his suspension had been extended
for another 7 days without pay. Again, no reason was offered for said
decision. After the lapse of the extension, respondent was not allowed
to return to work. When he inquired about the status of his employment,
Viacrusis assured him that he will be rehired in due time. Eight (8)
months passed but respondent received no word from petitioner.
On
July 6, 1998, respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for
illegal suspension and dismissal. He prayed for reinstatement, or if
reinstatement is not possible, an award of separation pay, including a
claim for moral damages and attorney's fees.
[1]In
its Comment, petitioner alleged that respondent was dismissed for just
cause. Petitioner claimed that on October 28, 1997, complainant and his
assistant observed that the bulldozer produced an unusual sound during
operation. The motorpool personnel inspected the bulldozer and
discovered that its component parts were damaged due to the low
lubrication level in its gear box.
Assistant Chief Mechanic
Leoncio V. Aunzo, head of petitioner's motorpool department, reported
to its President, Mr. Tan, that the root cause of the damage was
respondent's gross negligence when he failed to inspect the bulldozer
before he operated it. The cost of repairing the damaged parts was
estimated at P112,932.00. As the bulldozer was not in service for 3-5
months, petitioner alleged that it incurred delay in its production,
with the loss valued at about P500,000.00.
[2]Petitioner
averred that it required respondent to explain why he should not be
found guilty of grave and habitual negligence in the performance of his
duties. As respondent failed to comply, petitioner alleged that it was
constrained to terminate respondent's services on November 13, 1997.
The order of dismissal from service was allegedly served on respondent
on the same day within petitioner's premises, but respondent refused to
receive the same.
On November 25, 1998,
the
labor arbiter ruled that petitioner failed to prove by substantial
evidence that there was just cause for dismissing respondent from
service. It held petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal and
ordered the reinstatement of respondent and payment of his backwages. The decretal portion reads:
[3]WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the dismissal to be illegal.
Respondent,
PHESCHEM INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION and/or MR. TOMAS Y. TAN, President, is
hereby ordered to pay complainant PABLITO B. MOLDES (sic) the amount of
SIXTY ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED THIRTY SIX PESOS (P61,236.00)
representing his backwages from November 13, 1997 to November 25, 1998
the date of this decision, subject to recomputation until his actual
reinstatement, and further, to be reinstated to his former position as
heavy equipment operator, without loss of seniority rights and other
benefits.
Other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[4]
On
appeal to the NLRC, petitioner alleged that: (1) the labor arbiter
erred in ordering reinstatement, as respondent, in his complaint,
prayed only for separation pay; (2) respondent's dismissal from service
was for a just cause, i.e., for gross and habitual neglect of his duty
to inspect the bulldozer before operating it; (3) it served a
termination notice on respondent on November 13, 1997 but he refused to
receive it; and, (4) respondent is not entitled to backwages as he was
gainfully employed with another firm after his dismissal.
[5]The NLRC dismissed petitioner's appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in toto the decision of the labor arbiter.
[6] On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the congruent findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC.
Hence, this appeal where petitioner raises the following assigned errors:
I
WHETHER
OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING CA-G.R. SP
NO. 61564 AND THEREBY AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION IN NLRC CASE NO. V-000205-99 (RAB 08-0718-98)
WHICH MAINTAINED THE ORDER OF THE EXECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER REINSTATING
THE RESPONDENT TO HIS FORMER POSITION WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY RIGHTS
AND OTHER BENEFITS.
II
WHETHER
OR NOT REINSTATEMENT CAN STILL BE ADJUDGED TO THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE
FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES, AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT, IN THE
FIRST PLACE, RESPONDENT'S CAUSE OF ACTION AND PRAYER, AS CONTAINED IN
HIS COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PETITIONER, WAS ONLY FOR PAYMENT OF
SEPARATION PAY.
III
IF
RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO SEPARATION PAY IN LIEU OF REINSTATEMENT,
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPUTATION OF HIS BACKWAGES SHOULD STOP UPON THE
FINALITY OF THE NLRC DECISION IN NLRC CASE NO. V-000205-99 (RAB
08-0718-98).
At the outset, we stress that in the case at bar,
petitioner did not raise the issue regarding the illegality of respondent's dismissal from service.
Instead, in its first two (2) assigned errors, petitioner assails the
order of the Court of Appeals affirming the reinstatement of respondent
to his previous position on the ground that in his complaint before the
labor arbiter, respondent did not pray for reinstatement, but for
payment of separation pay and backwages. Petitioner adds that
reinstatement is no longer feasible due to the strained relationship
engendered by its filing of a complaint for damages against the
respondent.
[7]We find no merit in petitioner's contentions.
A
review of the records of the case reveals no compelling reason to
disturb the identical rulings of the labor arbiter, the NLRC and the
Court of Appeals. The legal consequences of an illegal dismissal are
reinstatement of the employee without loss of seniority rights and other privileges,
and payment of his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent.
[8] Clearly,
the law intended reinstatement to be the general rule. It is only when
reinstatement is no longer feasible that payment of separation pay is
awarded to an illegally dismissed employee. [9]Reinstatement is the restoration to a state or condition from which one had been removed or separated.
[10] In providing
foremost
for the reinstatement of an illegally dismissed employee, the Labor
Code not only recognizes the security of tenure granted by law to
regular employees, but also gives substance and meaning to the
protection accorded by the Constitution to labor. Employment is
significant to every working man. It is the means by which he sustains
himself and his family, hence, the law mandates the reinstatement of an
illegally dismissed employee to his former position. Payment of
separation pay as a substitute for reinstatement is allowed only under
exceptional circumstances,
viz:
(1) when reasons exist which are not attributable to the fault or
beyond the control of the employer, such as, when the employer, who is
in severe financial strait and has suffered serious business losses,
has ceased operations, implemented retrenchment, or abolished the
position due to the installation of labor-saving devices; (2) when the
illegally dismissed employee has contracted a disease and his
reinstatement will endanger the safety of his co-employees; or, (3)
where strained relationship exists between the employer and the
dismissed employee.
[11]The
circumstances in the case at bar do not warrant the award of separation
pay to respondent in lieu of reinstatement to his former position.First.
The records disclose that respondent has been in petitioner's employ
for fourteen (14) years and has no previous record of inefficiency or
infraction of company rules prior to his illegal dismissal from service.
Second.
The complaint for damages filed by petitioner against respondent, which
was decided in favor of the petitioner, does not by itself justify the
non-reinstatement of respondent due to the alleged antagonism
engendered by the suit. The evidence reveals that the civil case did
not entail prolonged litigation between the parties as respondent was
declared in default. For failure of respondent's counsel to appear on
the date of hearing, the case was decided solely on the basis of the
evidence of the petitioner.
[12] Hence,
the existence of strained relations between the parties is not clearly established.
We have ruled that the doctrine of "strained relations" cannot be used
recklessly or applied loosely to deprive an illegally dismissed
employee of his means of livelihood and deny him reinstatement. While
the Court acknowledges that, in the natural course of events, a certain
degree of hostility is engendered by litigation, it will not
by itself constitute sufficient proof of the existence of strained relations to rule out the possibility of reinstatement.
[13]Third.
Respondent's omission to pray for reinstatement in his position paper
before the labor arbiter cannot be considered as an implied waiver to
be reinstated. It was a mere procedural lapse which should not affect
his substantive right to reinstatement.
[14]
It is a settled principle that technicalities have no place in labor
cases as rules of procedure are designed primarily to give substance
and meaning to the objectives of the Labor Code to accord protection to
labor.
[15]The
foregoing circumstances show beyond doubt that respondent had no intent
to relinquish his desire to be restored to his former position.
On
the issue of backwages, we reject the position of petitioner that its
computation should be made only after the finality of the NLRC
decision. Article 279 of the Labor Code provides that an illegally
dismissed employee shall be entitled,
inter alia, to the
payment of his full backwages, inclusive of allowances and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent
computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him, i.e., from the time of his illegal dismissal, up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Thus, where reinstatement is adjudged, the award of backwages and other
benefits continues beyond the date of the labor arbiter's decision
ordering reinstatement and extends up to the time said order of
reinstatement is actually carried out.
[16]IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is
DISMISSED.
The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
61514, dated March 21, 2003 and December 12, 2003, respectively, are
affirmed in toto. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., Tinga, and
Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
[1] CA Rollo at 20.
[2]
In the complaint for damages filed by petitioner against respondent,
the lower court awarded petitioner only the amount of P100,000.00 as
actual damages and compensation for its alleged business losses. See
Rollo at 84-85.
[3] See Decision, CA Rollo at 39-44.
[4] Id., at 44.
[5] See Appeal, CA Rollo at 45-54.
[6] CA Rollo at 56-60.
[7] Decision of RTC Judge Eric F. Menchavez in Civil Case No. PN-0241, Rollo at 82-85.
[8] Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation v. Chrysler Philippines Labor Union,
et al., G.R. No. 148738, June 29, 2004.
[9] Article 279, Labor Code, as amended.
[10] Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. NLRC,
et al, 245 SCRA 627 (1995).
[11]
Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. NLRC, 252 SCRA 237 (1996); Article 283
of the Labor Code; Section 4 (b), Rule 1, Book VI of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code; Oro Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC,
238 SCRA 105 (1994).
[12] See January 24, 2002 RTC decision in the civil case for damages, Rollo at 82-83.
[13] Procter and Gamble Philippines v. Bondesto, G.R. No. 139847, March 5, 2004.
[14] Comment, Rollo at 89-93.
[15] General Baptist Bible College v. National Labor Relations Commission, 219 SCRA 549 (1993).
[16] Rasonable v. NLRC, 253 SCRA 815 (1996).