Dear PAO,
We filed a case for illegal dismissal, praying for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations. Our employer established that we stopped reporting to work, but the ruling states there could be no abandonment because the filing of a case for illegal dismissal is incompatible with the desire to sever the employer-employee relationship. However, we failed to establish that we were actually dismissed from employment. We were awarded reinstatement with no award for back wages. Neither was separation pay awarded, although we prayed for it considering the strained relations between us and the employer. Is this correct?
Kitz
Dear Kitz,
Please be informed of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Froel M. Pu-od et al. v. Ablaze Builders, Inc./Rolando Pampolino (GR 230791, Nov. 20, 2017, Ponente: Associate Justice Noel Tijam), where the tribunal stated the award in the absence of illegal dismissal or abandonment:
“In cases where there is both an absence of illegal dismissal on the part of the employer and an absence of abandonment on the part of the employees, the remedy is reinstatement but without back wages. However, considering that the reinstatement was already impossible by reason of the strained relations of the parties, and the fact that petitioners already found another employment, each party must bear his or her own loss, thus, placing them on equal footing.
“Thus, in MZR Industries et al. v. Majen Colambot, We held that:
Get the latest news
delivered to your inbox
Sign up for The Manila Times newsletters
“These circumstances, taken together, the lack of evidence of dismissal and the lack of intent on the part of the respondent to abandon his work, the remedy is reinstatement but without back wages. However, considering that reinstatement is no longer applicable due to the strained relationship between the parties and that Colambot already found another employment, each party must bear his or her own loss, thus, placing them on equal footing.
“Verily, in a case where the employee’s failure to work was occasioned neither by his abandonment nor by a termination, the burden of economic loss is not rightfully shifted to the employer; each party must bear his own loss.” (Emphasis in the original)
From the above-quoted portion of the Supreme Court decision, when neither illegal dismissal nor abandonment is present, then the award for an employee is reinstatement without back wages, and if reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations, then each party must bear his own loss.
As in your case, the award of reinstatement without back wages is the proper award. However, if reinstatement is no longer possible due to strained relations between the parties, then each party must bear his own loss.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]
