December 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > December 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 167045 : December 01, 2010] COCOMANGAS HOTEL BEACH RESORT, ET AL. V. FEDERICO F. VISCA, ET AL. :
[G.R. No. 167045 : December 01, 2010]
COCOMANGAS HOTEL BEACH RESORT, ET AL. V. FEDERICO F. VISCA, ET AL.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 01 December 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 167045 (Cocomangas Hotel Beach Resort, et al. v. Federico F. Visca, et al.). - In the Decision[1] promulgated on August 29, 2008, the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding petitioners liable for illegal dismissal. The Court upheld the findings that respondents, who worked continuously for petitioners for three (3) to twelve (12) years as carpenter, foreman, and masons, were regular employees, and not project employees. The dispositive portion reads as follows:
In their Comment, respondents do not agree with petitioners' contentions. The allegation that reinstatement is impossible, considering the shaky viability of petitioners' business, is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, petitioners' ground of "strained relations" is not applicable in this case considering that respondents did not hold positions that enjoy the trust and confidence of their employers. In any event, respondents are open to the option of being awarded separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement, taking into account the considerable time this case has been pending. Thus, for their part, respondents seek a modification of the judgment, providing for the alternative remedy of separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement. Petitioners were required to file a reply thereto.[3] In the reply, petitioners, likewise, object to the payment of separation pay, reiterating financial constraints.
After careful consideration, the Court finds no substantial reason to warrant a reversal of our decision. The status of respondents as regular employees, and not as project employees, as petitioners insist, is a settled issue. As regular employees, they are entitled to security of tenure, and their services may not be terminated except for causes provided by law.[4] The finding that respondents were illegally dismissed stands.
It is a rule that, in illegal dismissal cases, the employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. Over the years, case law has developed an alternative that: where reinstatement is not feasible, expedient, or practical; where reinstatement will only exacerbate the tension and strained relations between the parties; or where the relationship between the employer and employee has been unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, it would be more prudent to order the payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement. It is, however, incumbent upon the employer to prove the existence of those circumstances showing that reinstatement will not work for the mutual benefit of the employer and the employees.[5]
In the instant case, petitioners averred that their relationship with respondents, despite being neighbors, has turned sour. It has not exactly been on a friendly footing as one expects in an island community.[6] Considering that, in their Comment, respondents have expressed their willingness to be paid separation pay, instead of being reinstated, the Court sees no bar to this relief.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. Considering the strained relations between the parties and the fact that respondents pose no objection to the award of separation pay, the dispositive portion of the Decision dated August 29, 2008 is clarified that, in lieu of reinstatement, petitioners are ordered to pay separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 167045 (Cocomangas Hotel Beach Resort, et al. v. Federico F. Visca, et al.). - In the Decision[1] promulgated on August 29, 2008, the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding petitioners liable for illegal dismissal. The Court upheld the findings that respondents, who worked continuously for petitioners for three (3) to twelve (12) years as carpenter, foreman, and masons, were regular employees, and not project employees. The dispositive portion reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated July 30, 2004 and Resolution dated February 2, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 78620 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the award for backwages should be computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the time of actual reinstatement.[2]A timely Motion for Reconsideration was filed, seeking a modification of the judgment with respect to the order of reinstatement. Petitioners allege that the resort's meager operation would be adversely affected if respondents were reinstated, considering the present economic situation and stiff competition in the area. Moreover, reinstatement was no longer feasible considering that the relationship between petitioners and respondents have allegedly become strained due to this labor case.
In their Comment, respondents do not agree with petitioners' contentions. The allegation that reinstatement is impossible, considering the shaky viability of petitioners' business, is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, petitioners' ground of "strained relations" is not applicable in this case considering that respondents did not hold positions that enjoy the trust and confidence of their employers. In any event, respondents are open to the option of being awarded separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement, taking into account the considerable time this case has been pending. Thus, for their part, respondents seek a modification of the judgment, providing for the alternative remedy of separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement. Petitioners were required to file a reply thereto.[3] In the reply, petitioners, likewise, object to the payment of separation pay, reiterating financial constraints.
After careful consideration, the Court finds no substantial reason to warrant a reversal of our decision. The status of respondents as regular employees, and not as project employees, as petitioners insist, is a settled issue. As regular employees, they are entitled to security of tenure, and their services may not be terminated except for causes provided by law.[4] The finding that respondents were illegally dismissed stands.
It is a rule that, in illegal dismissal cases, the employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. Over the years, case law has developed an alternative that: where reinstatement is not feasible, expedient, or practical; where reinstatement will only exacerbate the tension and strained relations between the parties; or where the relationship between the employer and employee has been unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, it would be more prudent to order the payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement. It is, however, incumbent upon the employer to prove the existence of those circumstances showing that reinstatement will not work for the mutual benefit of the employer and the employees.[5]
In the instant case, petitioners averred that their relationship with respondents, despite being neighbors, has turned sour. It has not exactly been on a friendly footing as one expects in an island community.[6] Considering that, in their Comment, respondents have expressed their willingness to be paid separation pay, instead of being reinstated, the Court sees no bar to this relief.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. Considering the strained relations between the parties and the fact that respondents pose no objection to the award of separation pay, the dispositive portion of the Decision dated August 29, 2008 is clarified that, in lieu of reinstatement, petitioners are ordered to pay separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 183-197.
[2] Id. at 196.
[3] Resolution dated April 13, 2009; id. at 136.
[4] Id. at 194-195.
[5] Johnson & Johnson (Phils.), Inc. v. Johnson Office & Sales Union-Federation of Free Workers (FFW), GR. No. 172799, July 6, 2007, 526 SCRA 672, 678-679.
[6] Rollo, p. 141 (wrong pagination).
