494 Phil. 363
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
On 26 October 1995, respondent[4] Zenaida V. Uy, former teller of the Escolta Branch of BPI, shouted at her Senior Manager, petitioner[5] Delfin D. Santos (Santos for brevity). Uy was told to go to the office of the petitioner Carlos B. Fragante, BPI’s area head and Assistant Vice President, to discuss her complaint. On the same date, AVP Fragante told Uy to transfer to the nearby Plaza Cervantes Branch of BPI and report to its operations manager to defuse (sic) the tense situation prevailing at the Escolta Branch. On 27 October 1995, AVP Fragante received the report of the Escolta Branch Manager (Santos) on the shouting incident, together with the written letter-reports of some branch personnel. On the same day, AVP Fragante ordered Uy to transfer to the Plaza Cervantes Branch. Upon receipt of the order, Uy commented that she will not transfer and will await the result of the grievance meeting. The respondent BPI Employees Union initiated a grievance proceeding against the BPI Management for the transfer of Uy to the Plaza Cervantes Branch. A meeting was set for 30 October 1995. On 30 October 1995, AVP Fragante sent Uy a letter . . . directing her to explain within 24 hours why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for insubordination, for not paying heed to the order to transfer. Uy sent a reply on the same date . . . explaining that she could not transfer from Escolta Branch because there was no proper turnover of her accountabilities; that she was not able to do so on October 27, 1995 because she was not allowed to open (as a teller); and, that since then she has been barred from entering the bank premises. On the same day, a meeting was held to hear Uy’s grievance relative to her transfer, but no agreement was reached. On 31 October 1995, AVP Fragante sent Uy another letter . . . asking her to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for uttering disrespectful, discourteous, insulting and unbecoming language to her superior, Senior Manager Delfin Santos. Uy sent an undated reply thereto . . . reiterating why she could just not leave her position at the Escolta Branch, and requesting that she be considered on leave starting November 2, 1995. On 13 November 1995, AVP Fragante wrote Uy another letter . . . directing her to show cause on or before 16 November 1995 why no disciplinary action, including possible termination, should be taken against her for the October 26, 1995 incident, for insubordination or defiance to the transfer order, and for going on absence without leave. A copy thereof was furnished the Union. Uy sent a reply letter dated November 20, 1995, asking for particulars relative to the alleged “highly disrespectful, discourteous, insulting, threatening, and unbecoming language and behavior towards your Manager, Delfin Santos” and on the alleged “past instances when she was involved with quarrels with your co-employees,” and alleging that she felt “binabastos mo ako” (I was being sexually harassed) when he uttered “Dito ka na lang, marami and [ang] lalaki dito” (You just stay here, there are plenty of men here), and when she answered “Hindi ako mahilig sa lalaki” (I am not fond of men), he retorted, “Maski dito ka na lang sa kuwarto ko” (You may just stay here in my room . . .). The union asked for a suspension of the grievance machinery and for investigation of the “sexual harassment” charge. On November 24, 1995, Uy requested Management through Mr. Oscar L. Cervantes, for transfer to the Taft Avenue Branch to save on gasoline expenses. Two meetings were held between the union side and the management side, represented by Mr. Fragante’s superior, Senior Vice President Alberto Jugo and Senior Manager Efren Tuble. When no agreement was reached, the management advised Uy and the Union as well as their counsel that the management had no choice but to terminate Uy. Both the union and Uy were sent copies of the Notice of Termination . . . dated December 8, 1995, which had the following tenor:
Dear Ms. Uy:On 28 October 1998, the Court of Appeals issued the assailed decision affirming the finding of the Voluntary Arbitrator that indeed Uy’s employment was illegally terminated. The appellate court, however, modified the award for backwages by limiting it to three years as well as finding that there was strained relations between the parties, to wit:
This is to advise you of the termination of your employment effective December 14, 1995 on the grounds of gross disrespect/discourtesy towards an officer, insubordination and absence without leave.
It has been established that you used highly disrespectful, discourteous, insulting, threatening and unbecoming language and behavior towards your branch manager, Delfin Santos, last October 26. Despite being given the chance to explain or justify your actions, you chose to skirt the issue by pointing out that I am in no position to make a conclusion as I was not around when the incident happened. You know fully well that as Sales Director of North Manila area having supervision over Escolta Branch, such incident was reported to me. Mr. Delfin Santos appropriately inhibited himself from conducting the investigation for obvious reasons. We disagree with you when you dismissed the incident as trivial. Moreover, the explanations you gave at our Head Office were found wanting in circumstances that would absolve you or mitigate your wrongdoing as said explanations in fact confirmed the findings at the branch level. With regard to quarrels with your officemates, you can be considered as recidivist. You can of course recall your quarrels, using very strong and insulting words, with your co-employees Ms. Teresa Manalang last year and with Jocelyn Ng this year.
You refused to follow the transfer instruction to report to Cervantes Branch last October 27 alleging failure to properly turn over your accountabilities despite being in the branch for practically the whole day on October 27. We have adequate procedure for the opening of ‘pico’ boxes in the presence of witnesses in cases of refusal and AWOL.
In a further manifestation of your contempt towards managerial authority, you went on absence without leave starting October 30. After refusing to receive all communications sent to your residence, you tried to rectify this AWOL by sending an undated letter received by us last November 6 wherein you declared yourself to be on leave beginning November 2. You have since refused to report for work.
Under the circumstances, you left us with no alternative but to terminate your employment with us.
(SGD.) CARLOS B. FRAGANTE
Asst. Vice President
Uy filed a case for illegal transfer and termination. On June 29, 1996, Labor Arbiter Manuel R. Caday who initially heard and decided the case issued a decision declaring the dismissal of Uy as illegal and ordering her reinstatement with full backwages and 10% attorney’s fees … BPI appealed the said decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which rendered a decision on May 28, 1997, setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s Decision for lack of jurisdiction, and ruling that the case falls under the jurisdiction of a Voluntary Arbitrator.
The case was raffled to respondent Arbitrator Entuna, who requested the parties to submit their respective position papers.[6]
The Voluntary Arbitrator, in his disputed Decision of 31 December 1997, adjudged:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the dismissal of complainant Zenaida Uy as illegal and ordering the respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands to immediately reinstate her to her position as bank teller of the Escolta Branch without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages computed from the time she was dismissed on December 14, 1995 until she is actually reinstated in the service, and including all her other benefits which are benefits under their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
For reasonable attorney’s fees, respondent is also ordered to pay complainant the equivalent of 10% of the recoverable award in this case.[7]
The Motion for Reconsideration of the herein respondents BPI, et al., was subsequently denied.
Aggrieved, they then filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals assailing the aforestated decision.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that instead of reinstatement, the petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands is DIRECTED to pay Uy back salaries not exceeding three (3) years and separation pay of one month for every year of service. The said judgment is AFFIRMED in all other respects.[8]Both parties seasonably filed their respective motions for partial reconsideration of the aforesaid decision but the appellate court denied them in a Resolution dated 08 March 1999.
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE QUESTIONED RESOLUTION AND DECISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ARE CONTRARY TO LAW INSOFAR AS THEY LIMITED THE AWARD OF BACKWAGES TO THREE (3) YEARS; ANDAnent the first issue, the petitioners contend that the decision of the appellate court limiting the award of backwages to three (3) years is contrary to law and jurisprudence.II
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT STRAINED RELATIONS EXIST BETWEEN THE BANK AND PETITIONER UY DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SHOUTING INCIDENT IS NOT SO SERIOUS AND IT INVOLVED ONLY PETITIONER UY AND RESPONDENT DELFIN SANTOS.[11]
ART. 279. Security of Tenure. - … An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to 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 up to the time of his actual reinstatement.Verily, the evident legislative intent as expressed in Rep. Act No. 6715, above-quoted, is that the backwages to be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee, should not, as a general rule, be diminished or reduced by the earnings derived by him elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissal. The underlying reason for this ruling is that the employee, while litigating the legality (illegality) of his dismissal, must still earn a living to support himself and his family. Corollary thereto, full backwages have to be paid by the employer as part of the price or penalty he has to pay for illegally dismissing his employee. Thus, a closer adherence to the legislative policy behind Rep. Act. No. 6715 points to “full backwages” as meaning exactly that, i.e., without deducting from backwages the earnings derived elsewhere by the concerned employee during the period of his illegal dismissal. In other words, the provision calling for “full backwages” to illegally dismissed employees is clear, plain and free from ambiguity and, therefore, must be applied without attempted or strained interpretation.[18]
Obviously, the principle of “strained relations” cannot be applied indiscriminately. Otherwise, reinstatement can never be possible simply because some hostility is invariably engendered between the parties as a result of litigation. That is human nature.In the case of PLDT, et al. v. Tolentino,[23] we reiterated our ruling in Quijano v. Mercury Drug Corp.[24] wherein we propitiously said that the strained relations doctrine should be strictly applied so as not to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his right to reinstatement. We further stated that:
Besides, no strained relations should arise from a valid and legal act of asserting one’s right; otherwise an employee who shall assert his right could be easily separated from the service, by merely paying his separation pay on the pretext that his relationship with his employer had already become strained.
Petitioners’ reliance is well placed.
We have oft said that mere allegation of strained relations to bar reinstatement is frowned upon.
Well-entrenched is the rule that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. Over the years, however, the case law developed that where reinstatement is not feasible, expedient or practical, as where reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and strained relations between the parties, or where the relationship between the employer and 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. Some unscrupulous employers, however, have taken advantage of the overgrowth of this doctrine of “strained relations” by using it as a cover to get rid of its employees and thus defeat their right to job security.The said case went on further to quote our pronouncement in the case of Almira v. B.F. Goodrich, Philippines, Inc.:[25]
To protect labor’s security of tenure, we emphasize that the doctrine of “strained relations” should be strictly applied so as not to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his right to reinstatement. Every labor dispute almost always results in “strained relations” and the phrase cannot be given an overarching interpretation, otherwise, an unjustly dismissed employee can never be reinstated.
This Court is cognizant of management’s right to select the people who will manage its business as well as its right to dismiss them. However, this right cannot be abused. Its exercise must always be tempered with compassion and understanding. As former Chief Justice Enrique Fernando eloquently put it:Moreover, it has been almost a decade since the incident that led to the dismissal of petitioner Uy occurred. Petitioner Uy contends, and the respondents do not contradict, that respondent Carlos Fragante has long been assigned in another area and Messrs. Alberto Jugo and Oscar Contreras are no longer connected with respondent BPI. Considering, thus, that there now appears no more basis for strained relations between the present management and petitioner Uy, reinstatement is possible.Where penalty less severe would suffice, whatever missteps may be committees by labor ought not to be visited with consequence so severe. It is not only because of the law’s concern for the workingmen. There is, in addition, his family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage-earner. The misery and pain attendant on the loss of jobs then could be avoided if there be acceptance of the view that under all the circumstances of a case, the workers should not be deprived of their means of livelihood. Nor is this to condone what has been done by them.
“ART. 279. Security of Tenure. – In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to 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 up to the time of his actual reinstatement.”[18] See note 15.