
RESPONDENT Janrie C. Dailig, a security guard, was relieved from his post on Dec. 10, 2005. He filed a complaint against petitioner Emeritus Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries and non-payment of full back wages. The labor arbiter found respondent to have been illegally dismissed. Accordingly, petitioner was ordered to reinstate respondent and to pay him back wages from the time his compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner for lack of merit. The NLRC, however, pointed out that the computation of respondent’s award of full back wages should be reckoned from June 10, 2006 and not Dec. 10, 2005. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the finding of the labor arbiter and the NLRC that respondent was illegally dismissed by petitioner. It, however, set aside the labor arbiter and the NLRC’s reinstatement order. Instead, the CA ordered the payment of separation pay, invoking the doctrine of strained relations between the parties. Did the CA err?Ruling: Yes. In this case, petitioner claims that it complied with the reinstatement order of the Labor Arbiter. On Jan. 23, 2008, petitioner sent respondent a notice informing him of the Labor Arbiter’s decision to reinstate him. Accordingly, in February 2008, respondent was assigned by petitioner to Canlubang Sugar Estate, Inc. in Canlubang, Laguna, and to various posts thereafter. At the time of the filing of the petition, respondent was assigned by petitioner to MD Distripark Manila, Inc. in Read More …