ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 156963. April 20, 2005]

PHILAM LIFE vs. GRAMAJE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 20 2005.

G.R. No. 156963 (THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE AND GEN. INSURANCE CO. vs. ANGELITA S. GRAMAJE.)

This resolves petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 December 2004 of our Decision promulgated on 11 November 2004 affirming the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 18 October 2002 and 20 January 2003, respectively. The Court of Appeals decision ordered herein petitioner to pay the respondent separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, full backwages inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, moral and exemplary damages.

The petitioner asks this Court to take a second closer look at its factual and legal arguments, ^[1] cralaw and prays that our Decision dated 11 November 2004 be reconsidered and a new one entered reinstating (he Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated 27 November 2000 and 16 January 2001. ^[2] cralaw

After taking a closer look at the arguments raised in the motion for reconsideration, we have readily seen that the matters hoisted therein had already been discussed and passed upon in our Decision. We see no need to explicate anew.

There is, however, one point which was raised for the first time in the motion for reconsideration. The petitioner invokes the case of Agabon v. NLRC. ^[3] cralaw According to it, the doctrine laid down in the Agabon case must be applied to the instant case, thereby entitling the respondent only to nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00, and not to separation pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages.

The reliance of the petitioner in the doctrine laid down in the Agabon case is quite off tangent. In that case, we found that the dismissal of the workers was for a just and authorized cause, but due process was not observed. We awarded nominal damages to the workers in the amount of P30,000.00. In the instant case, however, there was constructive dismissal without just or authorized cause. The award of separation pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages was, therefore, proper.

WHEREFORE, finding no compelling reason to reconsider our earlier Decision, the Motion for Reconsideration is, as it is hereby, DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 584.

^[2] cralaw Rollo, p. 607.

^[3] cralaw G.R. No. 158693, 17 November 2004.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011