Unaffected relations

An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. But if the relation between employer and employee is already strained, it is more prudent to order the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. This case of Rey explains the meaning of “strained relations”.

Rey was hired as receiver/issuer by a food conglomerate (SMFI) on February 16, 1984 in its B-Meg plant. After several years of service he was promoted as inventory controller performing at the same time the function of warehouseman. As an employee he was also a member and once served as an officer of the employees’ Union.

On June 26, 2000 Rey was surprised to receive a letter from SMFI’s president informing him that his position as “sales office coordinator under the logistics department” has been declared redundant and that his services would be terminated effective July 31, 2001 entitled to an early retirement package. SMFI thereafter submitted to the Department of Labor and Employment the list of retrenched employees that includes Rey’s name.

Thus with the support of the Union, Rey filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against SMFI primarily because he was not a sales office coordinator but an inventory controller also performing the function of warehouseman.

SMFI however insisted that Rey was redeployed as Sales coordinator upon his own request way back in December 1997 due to the cessation of business of the B-Meg plant even without rendering actual work, on the assumption that he would take the place of the retiring sales coordinator at that time. But the Labor Arbiter (LA) still ruled that Rey was illegally dismissed and ordered SMFI to pay him P1.5 million separation pay, back-wages and attorney’s fees.

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA’s findings that Rey was illegally dismissed but modified it by ordering his reinstatement with back-wages in lieu of separation pay. However on further appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the portion of the NLRC decision ordering reinstatement in view of the strained relations between employer-employee. Was the CA correct?

No. For the application of the doctrine of “strained relation”, it should be proved that the employee concerned occupies a position where he enjoys the trust and confidence of his employer and that if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism may be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned.

In this case there are no hard facts on which to base the application of the doctrine. There is no basis for the finding that the strained relation exists. The conclusions are merely based on impressions. The words used by Rey in his pleadings allegedly imputing malice and bad faith towards SMFI are insufficient to prove the presence of strained relations. Rey should not be faulted for his choice of words especially in the light of the overwhelming evidence showing he was illegally dismissed. It is human nature that some hostility will inevitably arise between the parties as a result of litigation but the same does not always constitute strained relations without proof or explanation that such indeed exists.

Moreover the filing of the complaint by Rey cannot be used as basis for strained relations. As a rule no strained relations arise from a valid and legal act of asserting ones right. So Rey should be immediately reinstated and paid his back-wages especially considering that the position of inventory controller and warehouseman is still existing (Cabigting vs. San Miguel Foods Inc. G.R. 167706, November 3, 2009).   

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]