July 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > July 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 153477 : July 04, 2007] DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES, INC. V. LOLITA VELASCO :
[G.R. No. 153477 : July 04, 2007]
DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES, INC. V. LOLITA VELASCO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated 04 July 2007:
G.R. No. 153477 - (Del Monte Philippines, Inc. v. Lolita Velasco)
In a Decision dated March 6, 2007, the Court denied the Petition filed by Del Monte Philippines, Inc., affirming the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 23, 2001 which, in turn, declared the dismissal of respondent illegal on account of pregnancy, a prohibited act under Article 137 of the Labor Code.
Submitted now for resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner contends that considering petitioner's good faith and the further fact that respondent was not entirely faultless, the petitioner should be spared from the burden of paying backwages, invoking jurisprudence to prove this point; and that while it may be true that respondent was pregnant at the time of her dismissal, such pregnancy was not in any way related to its decision to terminate her services, which was really founded on gross and habitual neglect.
First. The petitioner canot rely on Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission.[1] In that case, the Court found the dismissal of the worker too drastic a punishment in view of his 23 years of long service and also the company's good faith. Accordingly, the Court ordered the worker's reinstatement but without backwages. The holding in Cruz v. Minister of Labor and Employment[2] is similar in that the Court found the dismissal too drastic a measure and subsequently ordered the reinstatement of the worker without backwages.
In the instant case, however, the dismissal of the respondent was illegal since it amounted to a prohibited act, namely, the dismissal of the worker by reason of pregnancy. The foregoing jurisprudence is not applicable to the question of illegal dismissal and its consequences -questions attendant in the present case. Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee unjustly dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement and backwages, among others. This is qualified by the rule that if reinstatement is no longer possible or practicable, the employer may be made instead to pay separation pay to the employee in lieu of reinstatement.[3] This is an established principle.[4]
Second. The rest of the matters reiterate basically the same arguments raised in petitioner's pleadings which had been laid to rest by the Decision dated March 6, 2007 and the Court finds no cogent reason that warrants a reconsideration thereof.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.
SO ORDERED.
(Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, ponente, with Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, and Dante O. Tinga, designated as additional member)
G.R. No. 153477 - (Del Monte Philippines, Inc. v. Lolita Velasco)
RESOLUTION
In a Decision dated March 6, 2007, the Court denied the Petition filed by Del Monte Philippines, Inc., affirming the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 23, 2001 which, in turn, declared the dismissal of respondent illegal on account of pregnancy, a prohibited act under Article 137 of the Labor Code.
Submitted now for resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner contends that considering petitioner's good faith and the further fact that respondent was not entirely faultless, the petitioner should be spared from the burden of paying backwages, invoking jurisprudence to prove this point; and that while it may be true that respondent was pregnant at the time of her dismissal, such pregnancy was not in any way related to its decision to terminate her services, which was really founded on gross and habitual neglect.
First. The petitioner canot rely on Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission.[1] In that case, the Court found the dismissal of the worker too drastic a punishment in view of his 23 years of long service and also the company's good faith. Accordingly, the Court ordered the worker's reinstatement but without backwages. The holding in Cruz v. Minister of Labor and Employment[2] is similar in that the Court found the dismissal too drastic a measure and subsequently ordered the reinstatement of the worker without backwages.
In the instant case, however, the dismissal of the respondent was illegal since it amounted to a prohibited act, namely, the dismissal of the worker by reason of pregnancy. The foregoing jurisprudence is not applicable to the question of illegal dismissal and its consequences -questions attendant in the present case. Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee unjustly dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement and backwages, among others. This is qualified by the rule that if reinstatement is no longer possible or practicable, the employer may be made instead to pay separation pay to the employee in lieu of reinstatement.[3] This is an established principle.[4]
Second. The rest of the matters reiterate basically the same arguments raised in petitioner's pleadings which had been laid to rest by the Decision dated March 6, 2007 and the Court finds no cogent reason that warrants a reconsideration thereof.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.
SO ORDERED.
(Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, ponente, with Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, and Dante O. Tinga, designated as additional member)
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] 202 Phil. 850, 855-856 (1982).
[2] 205 Phil. 14, 18 (1983).
[3] Velasco v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 161694, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 686, 697.
[4] See id.; Hantex Trading Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 438 Phil. 737, 748 (2002); Maneja v. National Labor Relations Commission, 353 Phil. 45, 66 (1998); Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, 341 Phil. 809, 815-816 (1997); Mabeza v. National Labor Relations Commission, 338 Phil. 386, 401 (1997); Bustamante v. National Labor Relations Commission, 332 Phil. 833, 843 (1996); Santos v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. L-76721, September 21, 1987, 154 SCRA 166, 173.
