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 Biñan, Laguna.
Considering petitioner’s undisputed claim that Emeritus and Emme are one and the same, there is no basis in respondent’s allegation that he was not reinstated to his previous employment. Besides, respondent assails the corporate personalities of Emeritus and Emme only in his Comment filed before this Court. Further, respondent did not appeal the Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement order.
Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ ruling, there is nothing in the records showing any strained relations between the parties to warrant the award of separation pay. There is neither allegation nor proof that such animosity existed between petitioner and respondent. In fact, petitioner complied with the Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement order.
Considering that (1) petitioner reinstated respondent in compliance with the Labor Arbiter’s decision, and (2) there is no ground, particularly strained relations between the parties, to justify the grant of separation pay, the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the payment thereof, in lieu of reinstatement. (Carpio, J., SC Second Division; Emeritus Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. vs. Janrie C. Dailig, G.R. No. 204761, April 2, 2014).
(Almirante is a former labor arbiter.)
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on February 07, 2015.
